Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Local Government Commission

Mr. David Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress of the work of the Local Government Commission.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): We announced on 30 September that the commission's programme was to be speeded up so that all the remaining shire reviews could be completed by the end of 1994. We also issued some proposed amendments to the commission's guidance on policy and procedures. We are consulting the commission and the local authority associations on the implications of the new timetable and guidance.

Mr. Atkinson: I welcome my right hon. Friend's decision to speed up the work of the commission. Can he say whether he expects the elections to the new unitary authorities to take place in 1995? Does he agree that one of the sad lessons of the last local government reorganisation was that the smaller unitary authorities, such as the former county borough councils, including Bournemouth, proved to be much more beautiful and efficient?

Mr. Gummer: As the legislation has to complete its passage through the House, I would not like to be too definite about the number that would be possible. I agree with my hon. Friend that people in many parts of the country are looking for local government that is closer to the people but large enough to have the necessary powers.

Mr. Clelland: Is the Secretary of State aware that the democratic deficit of the country has now reached such an extent that we are the least represented democracy in the modern world, and that the work of the commission, by reducing the numbers of councils and councillors, will further aggravate that situation? Does he agree that the Government should arrange for the election of democratically elected regional government, instead of further extending the unelected state by the appointment of seven regional commissars who are responsible only to the doctrines and dictates of Whitehall?

Mr. Gummer: I find it difficult to understand that a spokesman from a party whose democratic deficit has never been properly addressed can make such a comment at all. The Labour party's policy and representatives are

largely dictated by people who have never liked elections of any kind. Many of them are elected for life in a way that, until the rules were changed, was reminiscent of Haiti. I am certainly not learning anything from the hon. Gentleman about that. Our purpose is to make us more democratic and have a democratic system much closer to the people.

Mr. Barry Field: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the concern in the Isle of Wight at the announcement made during the recess. This morning, the Select Committee on the Environment took evidence from Sir John Banham and we were surprised to learn that the next tranche has been frozen, so far as the commission is concerned. That includes Hampshire and has implications for the administration of the Isle of Wiġht.
When my right hon. Friend was Minister for local government, he was a great gladiator for every community making its own decisions. Can he reassure my constituents this afternoon, and other Conservative Members who believe in unitary government—small being beautiful—that the whole thing is not becoming murkier and opaque by the minute?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the most important thing is for local government to be as close as possible to those who elect it, so that the people know why the decisions are made and know to whom those decisions are to be accounted for. My hon. Friend has particular difficulties, as I am aware, with the Isle of Wight, and we are trying to address some of them. I hope that he will be able to put those points more clearly in the Adjournment debate which I understand that he will have. I assure him that we want this to be as transparent as possible.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: In view of the astonishment expressed this morning by the chairman of the Local Government Commission at being directed yesterday to cease all work on the second tranche of reorganisation of local authorities, does the Secretary of State not now agree that the whole process and programme of reorganisation on which they have embarked is in an utter shambles? It does not have the backing of public support.

Mr. Gummer: I find that an odd question, if I may say so. The fact is that the commission is concerned to listen closely to what the public wants. The hon. Lady must see that clearly, not only from the commission's actions but from its guidance. The reason why the direction was issued was simply that it is much more clear if future decisions are made under the new guidance, which cannot be officially promoted until the proper time after the consultation has taken place. If the hon. Lady does not understand that, I wish that she would go back and read the documents.

Mr. Thomason: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he sees the best possible outcome normally to be the creation of unitary authorities, arising from the Local Government Commission review? Will he also encourage the Local Government Commission to listen to that view? Some of us who listened, with concern, to the evidence given this morning to the Select Committee gained the impression that there might be some lack of enthusiasm among certain senior members of the commission for the introduction of unitary local government.

Mr. Gummer: There is no doubt from the guidance that we would expect the norm of local government to be unitary authorities, but we are first concerned that it should


be local government that the population see as the best form for their area. Therefore, we are perfectly well aware that there may be a variety of ways to conduct local government. Many of us regret the loss of variety. We hope that unitary local government will seek to delegate its powers, wherever suitable, to parish and town councils, for example. At the same time, we point to the importance of unitary local government because it ensures that people know whom to hold to account when decisions are made. In two-tier local government, there is often a grave difficulty with that.

Mr. Straw: Will the Secretary of State make a clear statement about how the costs of the reorganisation are to be borne? Does he understand that the whole exercise is necessary only because the Conservatives made such a botch of reorganisation in 1972? In those circumstances, it would be outrageous if the local people of the areas concerned were forced to pay all the costs of reorganisation by an alleged £100 surcharge on every council tax bill. If there is to be a surcharge, should it not be paid by the Ministers and Conservative Members of Parliament, such as the Secretary of State, who drove the 1972 reorganisation through the House of Commons despite the Labour party's consistent warnings that it would be an expensive and wasteful failure?

Mr. Gummer: I rather suspect that the Labour party at the time wanted an entirely different system, one that would have been extremely bad, as is usually the case. The reorganisation is intended to end with a simpler system of local government, which will cost less. I hope that the savings will be given to the council tax payers for whom they are made. I see no need to expect this to cost very much, simply because there will be considerable savings and we are not necessarily extending or increasing bureaucracy. The hon. Gentleman's worries are entirely unfounded.

Council for the Protection of Rural England

Mr. Rathbone: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when last he met representatives of the CPRE to discuss new housing development in the south-east; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction (Sir George Young): My right hon. Friend met a delegation from the CPRE led by Lord Marlesford on 8 July. My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning met another one on 1 September. The CPRE's views on the proposed level of housing for the south-east are well known to my Department and will be taken into account, together with those of other bodies, in the final version of the regional planning guidance for the south-east to be published later this year.

Mr. Rathbone: I welcome my right hon. Friend's contact with the CPRE. Does that lead him to conclude that the aim to have 35,000 more houses in East Sussex is over the top and that there are opportunities for building on derlict urban land of which advantage has not yet been fully taken? Any development of housing, whether in urban or rural areas, must be environmentally sensitive.

Sir George Young: I agree with my hon. Friend. No final decision has been taken on the figure of 35,000, and we are consulting on that. I agree that all use should be

made of derelict and underused land, the so-called brown land, before we make further encroachments into green fields. On my hon. Friend's last point, what we want to do is what he wants to do—provide decent homes for those living in his constituency without making unacceptable environmental sacrifices.

County Hall, London

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he now expects the redevelopment of county hall, SE1 to be completed.

The Minister for Local Government and Planning (Mr. David Curry): The Shirayama Corporation plans to finish its redevelopment of the riverside building by March 1996.

Mr. Banks: Does the Minister accept that the decision by "Baroness Bonkers" to abolish the Greater London council is deeply resented by Londoners, and does he accept that London is now in a chaotic state? Why will the Secretary of State not allow the people of London to discuss the possibility of having a strategic authority? He could get his own back on "Baroness Bonkers", who has said some rather nasty things about him.

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's vocabulary is quite unacceptable.

Mr. Banks: Does the Minister accept that the decision to allow a bunch of Japanese property sharks to take over county hall and turn it into an hotel is an insult to London? If the development cannot go ahead, will the Minister allow the roof to come off county hall and become derelict, just like Battersea power station?

Mr. Curry: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box, but it is easy to see why the GLC acquired the representation it did while he was prominently involved.
Not a dog has barked for the GLC. I have never known a corpse to die and decompose so rapidly and there to be so little regret at its departure. As for the Japanese corporation, the London residuary body has instructions to get the best price for county hall. A development is needed as that is One of the prime sites in London. The development that has been approved is exciting, and we expect completion to take place on 29 October. The sooner life returns to that side of the river the better, and a life that is forward looking rather than backward looking to the GLC.

Mr. Congdon: Does my hon. Friend recall the waste and extravagance of the late and unlamented GLC and does not he agree that many London Members welcome the opportunity to sell county hall to ensure that the proceeds flow back to the London boroughs?

Mr. Curry: The proceeds will flow back to the London boroughs during the period of the window for capital receipts, and they will be particularly beneficial to the boroughs. Nothing that the Khazbulatov of county hall says will make a difference.

Ms Hoey: Is the Minister aware that originally there was great opposition to the Shirayama development? Does he recognise that the Government could learn a lesson from the way in which Shirayama is working closely with local


people and with the local authority in trying to make the development as near as possible to what local people want and to bring jobs to the community?

Mr. Curry: One of the things that have changed during recent years since the demise of the GLC is that councils of all complexions have worked more sensibly with the private sector. That must be welcomed, and it brings a lot of sense and imagination to local government. I am delighted that that should be the case.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept that the redevelopment of county hall will provide worthwhile jobs for Londoners? Does he also accept that the abolition of the GLC has saved London ratepayers many tens of millions of pounds and that the GLC is regretted only by those who purloined its GLC silver?

Mr. Curry: I agree.

Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of the consultation relating to his responsibilities for licensing THORP.

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Tim Yeo): Consultation ended on 4 October. When all the consultation responses have been carefully considered, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will decide whether to afford a hearing or inquiry, and, if they decide not to do so, will take final decisions on the authorisations.

Mr. Williams: Today's issue of The Guardian states that German utilities may cancel their contracts with the thermal oxide reprocessing plant because the cost of reprocessing is more than twice the cost of dry storage. The original justification for THORP was that it would use the recovered uranium and plutonium, but there is not a market for those materials as there is a glut on the world market. Does the Minister agree that the original arguments for THORP have changed fundamentally since the 1970s and that they should now be subjected to a detailed independent public inquiry?

Mr. Yeo: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's remarks reflect a hostility to the nuclear industry that is widely shared by Opposition Members and that owes more to the continuing malign and powerful influence exercised over Labour party policy by Mr. Arthur Scargill and Labour's other paymasters in the National Union of Mineworkers than to any concern with the environment or safety.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend not accept that if a decision is not taken pretty soon, all the orders will have gone up the spout, and work in Cumbria will be seriously imperilled?

Mr. Yeo: I assure my hon. Friend that, as soon as we have carefully considered all the responses, we will make a decision. We are aware of the desirability of making that decision as soon as we reasonably and responsibly can.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Is not the truth about the consultation as stated in the evidence given by a departmental official at a conference in Germany—that the consultation process that has just ended was the only way

that the Department could think of trying to protect itself against the argument that, in law, it had to hold a public inquiry? In the light of all the changing circumstances, such as economic risks from Germany, increasing international opposition and increasing health concern, should not we accept—whatever our views on the issue —that the only way in which we will reach a decision that will stand up as valid and impartial is by allowing for some sort of scrutiny independent of the Government before the final decision is made?

Mr. Yeo: The Government have proceeded with extreme care at each step of the way. The purpose of that is to allow my right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for the Environment to make up their minds on the basis of the facts available.

Council Tax

Mr. Clappison: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what help is available to people living alone under the council tax.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): People living alone are entitled to a 25 per cent. discount on their council tax bill. Those on low incomes may also qualify for benefit to offset all or part of their council tax liability. They may also receive transitional relief, which eases the change from the community charge to the council tax.

Mr. Clappison: Does my hon. Friend agree that—unlike that proposed under recent Labour party policy—the help that he has just described is available for all single people? Does he further agree that the single people who are in the best position of all are those who live in Conservative-controlled areas? Is my hon. Friend aware of the very substantial difference between the council taxes levied in Conservative and in Labour areas?

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Single people living in Conservative-held areas will know that, in addition to the discount, band for band, they are paying £100 less than they would if they were living in a Labour-controlled area. My hon. Friend is also right in believing—and it is worth remembering—that if the Labour party had had its wag, there would have been no discounts at all for single people under the council tax system.

Mr. Pike: Does not the Minister recall the Government's concern about the plight of single pensioners and widows living alone under the rating system? Does not he recognise that many hundreds of thousands of widows and pensioners living alone are paying far more in council tax than they were in rates or poll tax and that that is especially true of those living in low-value properties? Should not we introduce a band lower than band A, as that would bring considerable benefit to that category of people?

Mr. Baldry: It comes ill from the mouth of a representative of the Labour party, which was opposed to any discount whatever for single people, to pretend that that party is the friend of those living on their own.

Rents to Mortgages

Mr. Deva: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people he expects to benefit from the proposed rents-to-mortgages scheme.

Mr. Gummer: There are more than 1·4 million council tenants who pay full rent and who will be eligible. We hope that as many as possible will take up this new opportunity.

Mr. Deva: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the scheme, which extends choice and opportunity for council tenants who would not otherwise have the opportunity to buy their own homes, is an extension of our great policy of giving people their own homes and the right to buy?

Mr. Gummer: It is important that people who can build something for the future should be given the opportunity to do so. One of the strengths of Conservative party policy is that it spreads to the many the privileges that were once enjoyed only by a few.

Mr. Soley: Given the crisis in, and the lack of, affordable rented accommodation, how does the Secretary of State propose to replace the rented properties that are sold? Could he not put as much effort into a mortgages-to-rents scheme to prevent the nightmare of home owners being put into bed-and-breakfast accommodation because they do not have any rented accommodation to which to go?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman misses the point. The homes are occupied; they are not empty. Under our proposed system, someone who would otherwise be paying rent for the rest of his or her life can begin to build up a capital asset, and so release capital for councils in other ways. The hon. Gentleman should be an enthusiast for the scheme. Yet again, however, any opportunity to spread ownership is opposed by Labour Members, who want to keep people under the control of local authorities.

Sir Anthony Durant: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House the Opposition's views on this new scheme? We do not seem to have heard anything from the Opposition.

Madam Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Minister answers for his own Government.

Mr. Battle: It is not the Secretary of State's duty to issue a "buyer beware" notice, instead of wasting more public money advertising this latest scheme? More than 70,000 people who have bought council flats under the right to buy now face massive repair and lease bills and service charges that they cannot pay. As mortgage companies are now refusing to lend money on former council flats and houses, what will the Secretary of State do about those people who have huge debts, who are unable to sell and who are trapped in their own homes? Will he endorse the comments of the Council of Mortgage Lenders, which recently told Wandsworth council simply to buy them back?

Mr. Gummer: What a miserable party the Labour party is. Here we have the largest extension of freedom that we have known in Britain for many, many years; here we have hundreds of thousands of families owning their own homes; here we have the removal of Labour party control over large sections of people's lives; and all that the hon. Gentleman can do is to moan on in that particular way. It

is about time that the people of Britain see that if they want an optimistic future, they will have to support the Government.

Right to Buy

7. Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to seek to extend the right to buy their homes to tenants of all housing associations; and if he will make a statement.

Sir George Young: The Government have no plans to extend the statutory right to buy, which is enjoyed by secure tenants of non-charitable housing associations, to tenants of charitable associations and to assured tenants. All associations are able to sell homes to their tenants on a voluntary basis, and we have encouraged them to apply the proceeds of such sales towards the provision of new social housing. The Government also provide grants to enable housing association tenants to buy into forms of shared ownership with a housing association or into outright ownership in the private market.

Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Northolt, tenants of the Kittiwake road housing associations' development will have no right to buy? Local people have been required, through an unwilling Ealing council, to contribute £300,000 towards the land given to the housing associations for the development scheme. At the Perivale hospital site, 133 homes are being built by the housing associations which will not involve any right to buy or shared ownership. Does that not mean that housing association tenants, in cases where there is no right to buy, are second-class citizens compared to council tenants? Is it not time that this situation was ended?

Sir George Young: As my hon. Friend may know, the Government proposed legislation in the 1980s to extend the right to buy to tenants of charitable housing associations. Those proposals were twice rejected in another place. To bring home ownership within the reach of housing association tenants, we have developed alternative schemes, including the tenants' incentive scheme and the do-it-yourself shared ownership scheme, so that housing association tenants do have the opportunity of becoming home owners.

Mr. George Howarth: I welcome the Minister's lack of agreement with his hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway).The attention that the Government continue to lavish on owner occupation at the expense of rented housing is unworthy of the Minister. Would it not be better if he spent some time looking at positive alternatives to the irrelevant rent-to-mortgage scheme? It is about time that the Minister—who came to his job with something of a reputation—stopped scapegoating single-parent families and did something constructive about housing instead of continuing the present destructive policies.

Sir George Young: On the first point, we are devoting substantial resources to providing more affordable homes for rent, as the hon. Gentleman knows. The figure is about 60,000 for the current year, three times more than it was two or three years ago. We are investing substantial sums to provide homes for rent. As to the second point, before the hon. Gentleman mines that quarry much further, he should read The Independent of Wednesday 7 July, which said:


Labour slants homes policy against the single parent".

Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my right hon. Friend accept —in line with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway)—that we have a problem with the housing associations? In areas such as mine—Waltham Forest, whose socialist-controlled council has been very dilatory in selling council homes to council tenants—housing associations are now buying up more land, locking more people into social housing and not giving them the opportunity to take up the right to buy, of which all Conservative Members are justifiably proud. May I urge my right hon. Friend to look again at the possibility of breaking down the position in regard to housing associations, so that we may change it radically?

Sir George Young: I am very interested in what my hon. Friend has said. A growing proportion of the Housing Corporation's budget is being spent on schemes that promote home ownership rather than renting. Shared-ownership incentive schemes, for example, now account for a larger percentage of the budget.
I am anxious for the housing association movement to be directed back towards its roots—towards urban regeneration, modernisation and improvement for sale, rather than towards extensive new building schemes for green-field sites. I said in Blackpool that I intended to bring about that redirection, which would be welcomed by many in the housing association movement.

Housing Associations

Mr. Raynsford: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the level of housing association grant in 1994–95.

Sir George Young: I announced on 4 August that the published grant rates for the rented programme in 1994–95 would average 62 per cent. and that they would be a ceiling against which housing associations would be invited to bid.

Mr. Raynsford: As the Minister well knows, all informed opinion in the housing world—including the Housing Corporation itself and the Select Committee on the Environment—advised him not to make further cuts in housing association grant. That advice was given in the light of overwhelming evidence of the devastating impact of rent increases on tenants, which has forced them into benefit dependency and the poverty trap. When will the Minister recognise his responsibility to tenants, rather than acting—as he increasingly appears to be doing—as George the gopher, delivering cuts for the Treasury?

Sir George Young: That was an unusually unintelligent question from the hon. Gentleman. He knows perfectly well that the reductions in grant rate have nothing whatever to do with the totality of resources available. Those reductions enable more homes to be built for a given public pound. By progressively increasing the amount of private funds going into housing associations, we have enabled 30,000 more homes to be built than could have been built otherwise. If the hon. Gentleman wants to put the grant rate back to where it was, he must accept that fewer homes would then be available to meet the needs of those who require good-quality accommodation.

Mr. Tracey: Is not my right hon. Friend bothered by the impression that housing associations are too regularly

using their grant to outbid private sector developers? Will he amplify what he said in Blackpool about controlling the position and taking housing associations back to their roots in the way that he has just described, so that they can renovate out-of-date property and bring housing up to a proper standard, rather than building new housing?

Sir George Young: In the past few minutes, I have certainly noticed some antipathy towards housing associations—particularly those in London—among my hon. Friends. I readily accept my hon. Friend's invitation to describe in more detail the proposals that I outlined a few weeks ago, to ensure that the resources of the housing association movement are devoted to what housing associations originally set out to do: improving conditions, particularly in inner-city areas, doing more conversions and improving houses for sale, rather than building new houses. That could equally well be done by house builders building for sale.

Mr. Straw: Will the Minister come clean for once and confess whether he is any more comfortable with the disingenuous poppycock with which he answered my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) a moment ago than he was with the undignified role that he was put up to play at the Conservative party conference? There, as my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) said, he had to resort to scapegoating the children of single parents to pass on the blame for the housing crisis over which he presides. Will he admit that a reduction in the grant rate to housing associations necessarily requires an increase in private funding for housing associations, which in turn will force up rents—which have already rocketed—and that that, in turn, will force up housing benefit contributions from the Treasury? Will he admit that the overall consequence of those policies is to deny choice to any potential tenant who is in work and earning above housing benefit levels and to create ghettos out of what were once decent housing association estates?

Sir George Young: We all understand that there are shadow Cabinet elections today, which means that Opposition Members have to put more spice into their questions. The hon. Gentleman knows that there is a trade-off between rent levels and the volume of output. I have decided that the priority is to increase the output of affordable homes for rent. That is why the grant rate has decreased and imputed rents have increased. Housing' benefit is there to take the strain for those who cannot pay housing association rents. One must remember, however, that the average new rent on a housing association property is £42 a week. In my view that is affordable, given that housing benefit is there to take the strain for those on low incomes.

Bathing Waters

Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many bathing waters were designated by the Government for the purposes of the 1975 EC bathing waters directive by May 1979; and how many are designated now.

Mr. Yeo: No bathing waters were identified by May 1979. Since that date, 458 bathing waters have been identified.

Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. I am glad to hear that our bathing water is as clean as anywhere else. Does he accept that there is concern in this country that we seem to fare badly in European Community league tables with regard to the cleanliness of our bathing water? Will he reassure the House that in future dealings with our European continental partners he will insist that European officials also enforce the standards rigorously and ensure that their testing is done without bias?

Mr. Yeo: I am glad to be able to reassure my hon. Friend that, of the 3,165 European Community bathing waters that do not reach the mandatory standards laid down in the directive, only 3 per cent. are in the United Kingdom. We shall press for revision of that directive. We want it, first, to take more account of the subsidiarity principle; secondly, to be subject to a proper cost-benefit analysis; and, thirdly, to confine its scope to protecting the health of bathers. We shall require an even-handed approach to enforcement of that directive and all others. That is central to the credibility of the European Community and we will make the most strenuous efforts to achieve it.

Mr. Chris Smith: Will the Minister confirm, however, that in July the Government were found guilty in the European Court for the condition of Blackpool's bathing water? Will he confirm that in August his own reports showed that two thirds of all our beaches failed to meet the European guideline standards for safety and that that is the second worst performance of any country in Europe? Will he admit also that he is engaged in discussions with the French Government about the repeal, withdrawal and amendment of the bathing water directive? Why is the Government's response to failure to try to bend standards, not to improve performance? Is not it time that the Government put people's health and safety before the profits of the privatised water companies?

Mr. Yeo: That was quite a mouthful from the hon. Gentleman. The case in relation to Blackpool was purely a technicality because everyone who goes to Blackpool—I have just had the pleasure of spending a week there—will be aware that the programme of improvement to the bathing waters at Blackpool is well in hand. It is part of the £2 billion programme of the water industry in this country to ensure that we achieve full compliance with the standards of the bathing water directive by the end of 1995. I will happily assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that the British Government have had productive and positive talks with the French Government and with other member states about the scope for extending the important principle of subsidiarity to the bathing water directive, the drinking water directive and many others. The whole country will wish to know that it is the Labour party that wants to overthrow the principles of subsidiarity and is not interested in pressing ahead because it wants all those decisions to be transferred to Brussels lock, stock and barrel.

Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that beaches such as those at Blackpool have never been cleaner? In the wider context, does he also agree that one of the problems is that the directive is deeply flawed and that many other countries refuse to designate beaches as bathing beaches?

When he is next in Brussels will he ensure that those countries that do not designate bathing beaches do not get subsidies from Brussels to improve their tourist industry?

Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is right. First, the quality of the beach at Blackpool has never been higher, is improving all the time and will be even better by the time that we next visit Blackpool for another harmonious and triumphant week in October 1995. Secondly, my hon. Friend is also right that there has been much confusion in the interpretation of the directive and over what constitutes a bathing water. That is certainly one of the areas that we shall be dealing with through our efforts to have the directive revised and a greater element of common sense introduced into it.

Area Cost Adjustment

Mr. Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from northern local authorities about the area cost adjustment.

Mr. Curry: We have received many representations from all parts of the country about the area cost adjustment in the course of our review of standard spending assessments.

Mr. Beith: Has the Minister taken particular note of the feelings of northern authorities, such as Northumberland, which have to meet the same pay settlements for firemen and teachers as authorities in the south but are not compensated in the same way? The system appears to have cost Northumberland £2·5 million in the past year. Since some of those authorities have widely scattered populations and, therefore, very high costs in other respects, will he consider carefully some way to ameliorate the situation quickly in next year's settlement?

Mr. Curry: The fact is that those who get the area cost adjustment think that it is indispensable and that those who do not think that it is disgraceful. We are subjecting the adjustment to careful scrutiny to decide whether it stands up. If it does it will be retained; if not, it will be modified or we will get rid of it. On the right hon. Gentleman's question about sparsity and scattered rural communities, when we announce the review—we are nearing the final stages—I am sure that he will realise that we have sought to identify all those factors that genuinely compel local authority spending. I am sure that he will find that the adjustment is comprehensive, rational, fair and a great improvement on what we have now.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Will my hon. Friend contrast the question of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) with the stance of Liberal county councillors in Hertfordshire, who are saying exactly the opposite, as Liberals tend to do? Is not it a fact that no proper case has been put for the abolition of the area cost adjustment? The left-wing majority on the Association of County Councils formed by Liberals and the Labour party is out to cane the district and county councils of Hertfordshire and Surrey.

Mr. Curry: All the elements that go into the standard spending assessments are being subjected to careful examination and scrutiny. I am determined that that should be done fully and that the outcome should be balanced and fair. Where an element has stood up to that scrutiny and it


is clear that it is justified, it will be retained. Where it is clear that the weighting is wrong, we shall seek to adjust it and when it should go it will go. We shall end up with a more rational and transparent system, which will more accurately reflect the real costs pushing up local government expenditure.

Mr. Henderson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the real issue is not merely the point made by northern region councils, although that is important, but the absurdity of the present system? Under the all-ages social index, which, as the Minister knows, is an important component of the standard spending assessment, Oxford is calculated as more deprived than Liverpool and Cheltenham as more deprived than Newcastle. Will the Minister admit that if a fair and accurate system is to be found it must take into account the real factors of deprivation, such as unemployment and income levels? Will he tell the House today that, before the announcement on local government finance in December, he will make an announcement on any changes that he may propose to the SSAs?

Mr. Curry: The answer to the second part of the question is no, because we shall make the announcement about that when we announce the rate support grant settlement. On the hon. Member's third question about the all-ages social index, because the discussions that have taken place with the associations have not been behind closed doors, he will know that we are examining whether unemployment and health indicators should be brought into the index. We shall announce those conclusions and if those indicators are included it will be because our analysis shows that they should be and that they show areas of real need.

Local Authority Associations

Mr. Hall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many meetings he has had with representatives of the local authority associations since April 1992.

Mr. Baldry: Between April 1992 and May 1993, my right hon. and learned Friend the then Secretary of State met representatives of the major local authority associations on nine occasions. My right hon. Friend has since met representatives of those associations on four occasions, most recently at the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance on 12 October.

Mr. Hall: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that section 143 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 has not yet been given a commencement date? That section requires local authorities to compile a register of contaminated land. So far, only six local authorities, including my local authority in Warrington, have compiled such a register. Those registers enable local authorities to identify tracts of contamination, neutralise them and allow development to take place, thus removing areas of blight in our towns. Has the Minister informed the local authority associations when section 143 will be implemented? If he has not been able to give them a date, can he say when implementation will commence?

Mr. Baldry: The policy review of contaminated land is going extremely well. Every developer has to be responsible for discovering the history of particular pieces

of land. Our work on the register of contaminated land has made sure that every solicitor and every developer is conscious of his need and responsibility to discover the history of any land that he wishes to develop.

Mr. Vaz: Does the Minister recall that on 14 September the local authority associations discussed with the Secretary of State an agreed list of members for the Committee of the Regions and that on 29 September that list was submitted in writing? As the Minister knows, the list was carefully prepared and agreed by all the parties, including his own. Why has the Secretary of State refused to accept that list and why has he ignored the views of the associations? Will the Minister assure us that the Secretary of State will stop delaying this matter and accept the views of the associations, or is this just another example of the Government's blatant disregard for democracy and consultation?

Mr. Baldry: It is a function of the local authority associations to nominate and it is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to choose. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will choose extremely well.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: When my hon. Friend met the local authority associations, did he discuss market testing and compulsory competitive tendering, because there is still a huge cultural barrier to overcome with local authorities in this respect? This is the second-largest area of public expenditure, and a substantial sum could be saved if those concepts were advanced.

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Independent research by Birmingham university shows that substantial savings of between 7 and 20 per cent. have been made through competitive tendering. Every local authority will need to be able to demonstrate to local council tax payers that they have made the maximum possible savings through competitive tendering. I hope that, increasingly, we will not have to force local authorities to do that through compulsory competitive tendering regulations, but that they will see the value and virtue of exposing services to competitive tendering to get the best cost and results for their council tax payers.

Local Government Reorganisation

Mr. Olner: To ask the Secretary of State for the, Environment when he last met representatives of the local authority associations to discuss local government reorganisation.

Mr. Curry: On 14 September.

Mr. Olner: The Minister said earlier that he wanted local government reorganisation to become closer to the people. I would not disagree and suggest that we should look at unitary authorities based on districts. As well as closeness, those authorities need a degree of freedom.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Reading.

Mr. Olner: I can read. They need that freedom to be able to conduct their affairs to the best of their ability on behalf of the people whom they represent. Bearing that in mind, and because of all the uncertainty that the Minister has created by advancing this reorganisation, will he agree


to suspend compulsory competitive tendering for blue and white-collar workers within those organisations until reorganisation has been completed?

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman is behind the times. We have made it clear that we will not introduce white-collar competitive tendering during the course of reorganisation so as not to give local authorities more than they could handle at any time.

Mr. Milligan: Will my hon. Friend convey to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State my enthusiastic support for his remarks a few moments ago about the need for variety in local government? Is he aware that in Hampshire there is support for unitary government in Southampton and Portsmouth, but elsewhere in the county there is strong support for the existing two-tier system? Will my hon. Friend confirm that if the Local Government Commission finds that there is strong popular support for maintaining the county council and also finds that it is the most cost-efficient way of running the rest of the county, it will be able to recommend the continuation of the present two-tier system?

Mr. Curry: The Local Government Commission acts independently in the framework of the guidelines that we have laid down. The fact that those guidelines have been modified reflects the request of Sir John Banham that the Government should clarify their intentions in that area. Having clarified our intentions, the Government clearly wish to see that the bulk of recommendations should be consistent with those new guidelines. I temporarily suspended the review—about which there has been some comment—to achieve that consistency. When the Commission makes its recommendations, we will have to examine them and make our judgment and, at the end of the day, the House will have to make its judgment. Only when the House has done so will we be in a position to implement.

Mr. Tipping: Has the Minister discussed with local authority leaders the cost of local government reorganisation? Does he accept that the transitional costs will be in the region of £1·2 billion? Will he give an assurance to local authorities and the House that services will not be cut just to reorganise local authorities?

Mr. Curry: Everybody is chasing a piece of paper that came from the county councils which quotes that figure. That is not my Department's estimate. If I may say so, the county councils who expect their lives to be relatively short-lived perhaps have some interest in exaggerating the transitional costs.

Water Bills

Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent consultations he has had on proposals to moderate the burden of water bills for domestic consumers.

Mr. Gummer: In recent months, I have met the Director General of Water Services, the European Environment Commissioner, the chairman of the National Rivers Authority and representatives of the water industry. Those discussions have formed part of my consideration of the issues as addressed in a letter to Mr. Ian Byatt entitled

"Water Charges, the Quality Framework", which I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales have just published.

Mr. Nicholson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the vigour that he is showing in those matters, but he will be aware that the figures that are being talked of for increases year after year, especially in the south-west, are quite intolerable. Will he therefore concentrate his efforts on minimising those costs in the coming years, not only in the area covered by South-West Water, where they are at their greatest, but in other areas such as that covered by Wessex Water, which includes most of my constituency? Will he not lose sight of the benefits to single-person households, especially, which might be obtained from sensible metering?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to say that we want the lowest possible charges consistent with providing the standard of water quality and the cleanliness of beaches that we are all seeking. That means that we must strongly draw to the attention of companies the ways in which they can keep their costs under control and to talk in the European Community to ensure that we are seeking sensible standards in sensible time scales. I agree with my hon. Friend that metering has many attractions, but that is a matter for the water companies.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the Minister join me in condemning Anglia Water, which has the highest water charges in the country at £248 per head? Will he also condemn it for compulsorily metering households and recognise the hardship that that will cause to families with young children?

Mr. Gummer: I believe that the hon. Lady's constituency is covered by the private Cambridge Water company. My constituency is largely covered by Anglia Water, which I would not condemn at all. I think that it is an extremely good company which provides a good service and it has been much improved since privatisation, as I am sure my hon. Friends would agree. Metering has a number of advantages and it is necessary to look at them.

Mrs. Peacock: Many people in Yorkshire find it difficult to pay their water charges. What action can the Government take to moderate the huge increases in those charges which many people cannot afford to pay?

Mr. Gummer: I am happy to look at any particular incidents that my hon. Friend would like to bring my attention. Obviously, that is the case. However, the fact is that water charges reflect the cost of providing water. It is very much better to direct our help to those who need it than to say that there should be some way in which to subsidise water itself. We should recognise that water is one of the necessary parts of life and, in an attitude of promoting sustainable development, we must ensure that water is properly cared for. That means a pricing system that reflects its cost.

Ms Short: Will the Secretary of State give an undertaking that he will not pressurise the European Commission to repeal the drinking water directive which would mean that standards of cleaning up our water in Britain were reduced? People in Britain want clean, decent water at reasonable prices. They know that prices have escalated since privatisation largely because directors of water companies have given themselves intolerable pay


increases and because investment plans have been funded over far too short a period. The south-west needs help with the burden of cleaning up its beautiful coastline in which we all have an interest. Will the Secretary of State give an undertaking that he will not reduce bills by reducing standards?

Mr. Gummer: The people of Britain have very good-quality water at very reasonable prices. That is the position today. We want to raise standards progressively and sensibly. There is no doubt that within the European Community there are many other countries, like ourselves, which from time to time may say that they have some details in the arrangements for reaching those standards which are out of kilter. It is perfectly reasonable to discuss those matters and I will certainly do so.
I agree with the hon. Lady. What we want is what we already have, on which we can improve—high-quality water at reasonable prices. The reason for the increase in water charges is overwhelmingly the need for massive new investment to raise standards. The hon. Lady does her party no good by suggesting to the public that there is any reason for it other than that, which is manifest from the figures.

Local Authority Debt

Mr. Hendry: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current extent of local authority debt; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Curry: At 31 March this year, the total outstanding debt of local authorities in England was £37·6 billion. We shall continue to encourage authorities to reduce their debts.

Mr. Hendry: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the level of indebtedness is markedly worse in authorities that are Labour controlled than it is in those that are Conservative controlled? Can he also confirm that those indebted Labour authorities are, all too often, the authorities that have the highest average levels of council tax, the highest levels of uncollected rents, the highest levels of empty council properties and the worst services for looking after their population?

Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Some authorities seem to believe that debt has no impact at all. The fact is that debt costs the equivalent of £110 per adult in the country. Of course, that is money which must be paid in interest charges; it is money which cannot be spent on services. The taxpayer and the ordinary citizen have every interest in ensuring that that debt is brought down because services immediately benefit.

Mr. Betts: Is not it a bit rich for Conservative Members to talk about debt in the current situation? Does the Minister accept that the debt of local authorities, by law, is incurred in investment in long-term infrastructure projects? Labour authorities that have debt have it because they have invested in housing, in schools and in public transport systems over the years. The difference between their debt

and the Government's debt is that the Government have frittered away the long-term assets of this country and have their debt because of their short-term economic crisis.

Mr. Curry: One need only go to Sheffield to find out how untrue that is.

Mr. Matthew Banks: Is my hon. Friend aware of how much local government in Southport is in debt? It is in debt to my hon. Friend for listening so carefully and for acting so decisively to ensure that the structure of local government in my constituency will be reviewed shortly so that we can recapture the unitary authority status that we lost in 1974 and the independence that Southport rightly deserves.

Mr. Curry: We have made it clear that the Boundary Commission will examine the boundaries in the metropolitan areas when it has concluded the present review. I have no doubt that where there is an overwhelming demand for change, it will listen to those demands.

Water Disconnections

Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet representatives of the Office of Water Services and the water companies to discuss water disconnections; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Yeo: Ministers and officials do, from time to time, meet representatives of OFWAT and the water companies to discuss matters of mutual interest. My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans for meetings to discuss disconnections.

Mr. Barnes: Is the Minister aware that there are 50 disconnections of water supply per day in homes in England and Wales? There is evidence to show a clear link between rates of dysentery and disconnections. Why do not we have a more sensible system such as that which exists in Scotland where there are no disconnections? Debts are dealt with through the courts and evidence is passed from the citizens advice bureaux to OFWAT to deal with debts and payments. We do not want prepayment meters to be introduced so that people cut themselves off and dysentery spreads in their areas.

Mr. Yeo: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong in his assertion of a connection between dysentery and' disconnections. In Scotland, where disconnections are illegal, the incidence of dysentery shows exactly the same trends as in England and Wales. A water company has to go through a most elaborate procedure before any customer is disconnected. Disconnection is an absolute last resort for those who will not pay their bills; it is not for those who cannot pay their bills. If we were to ban disconnections it would do nothing to help poorer families; indeed, it would add to their costs as they would carry a share of the burden of those who refuse to pay. Disconnections would only help the skivers at the expense of the honest customer. That is why the Labour party espouses that cause.

Coal Industry

The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement outlining recent developments affecting the coal industry.
The House will first wish to join me in offering sympathy to the families of those men involved in the tragic accident at Bilsthorpe on 18 August, and pay tribute to the rescuers.
Last month, the Government announced their intention that British Coal's mining assets should be offered for sale in five regional packages. Potential purchasers will be given the opportunity to bid for one or more of the businesses. The bids will be assessed on their merits. We have offered financial assistance to management and employee buy-out teams towards the cost of preparing bids.
The Government have issued two consultation papers covering the pensions and concessionary fuel regimes after privatisation. Copies of the documents are available from the Vote Office.
The Government have repeatedly made it clear that they regard safety in the coal industry as paramount. I have sought the comprehensive advice of the Health and Safety Commission on all aspects of the post-privatisation safety regime. I expect to hear from the HSC shortly, and I will make its advice available to the House when it is received.
The Trade and Industry Select Committee recommended that a high priority should be placed on reforming working practices, especially working hours. Following the Government's White Paper commitments to consult, I can announce to the House that I have today made the necessary commencement order bringing the repeal of the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1908 into force on 20 November.
In our White Paper, we said that we would establish an Energy Advisory Panel. I am pleased to announce that Dr. Martin Holdgate, the former chairman of the Renewable Energy Advisory Group, has agreed to become chairman of the new panel. I have also written to other experts in the energy field asking them to serve as members.
The White Paper made clear the Government's view that the private sector should be given the opportunity to operate pits which British Coal does not wish to keep in production. Twenty pits have now been offered for licence. I understand that British Coal is currently considering 12 tenders for seven pits.
The Government are continuing their financial help for the coal industry. They are providing more than £1 billion this year, and funding will now total nearly £20 billion since 1979. The Government have informed British Coal that we are prepared to extend our funding for the current redundancy terms for miners until 30 April 1994. British Coal has today informed the mining unions that it is resuming consultations under the modified colliery review procedure as the mechanism within which it will consult them on the performance and prospects of collieries.
The Select Committee recommended a subsidy to help the coal industry to achieve additional sales. The Government accepted that recommendation for sales from deep mines for electricity generation. But, as my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade made clear,

there could be no guarantee of additional sales. It would be up to the coal industry to make the most of any new opportunities that arose.
As the House knows, the chairman of British Coal has said that he is pessimistic about the current market conditions and the prospects for genuinely additional sales this year. However, my Department has received applications for the subsidy, and I am pleased to tell the House that, subject to European Community clearance, the Government are now making the first offer of subsidy to British Coal in support of additional sales from Ellington colliery to British Alcan's power station at Lynemouth.
The coal industry will continue to face further challenges. The Government are_ convinced that privatisation offers the best way of meeting those challenges.

Mr. Robin Cook: First, I join the Minister in expressing our sympathy for the relatives of the men who lost their lives at Bilsthorpe. That accident reminds us of the constant danger of winning coal 1,000 ft below the earth's crust. I therefore find it deplorable that, in the same statement, the Minister should proceed to confirm that the Government will repeal working practices brought in by Parliament to impose decent safety standards on private pit owners.
We will not accept that the clock can be turned back to the working practices of the 19th century without putting at risk a century of improvement in safety. We will oppose those regulations, and the best tribute that the Minister could pay to the relatives of those who lost their lives at Bilsthorpe and the men who put their lives at risk in mine rescue would be to drop that proposal now. The best way of maintaining the best safety standards of British Coal, which are the finest in the world, would be for the Minister to drop his plans to bring in privatisation which will cut corners with safety.
The Minister referred to £1 billion being spent by the Government in the coal industry this year. Will he confirm that the overwhelming bulk of that £1 billion is the cost of the redundancy as a result of the Government's strategy for the coal industry, that, despite the public outcry, more than half the jobs in Britain's pits have gone in the past year, and that Britain, with the largest coal reserves in Europe, is now on course by next spring to have a mining work force of barely 1,000 men? Is not that the real message of the Minister's statement? [HON. MEMBERS: "How many?"] Ten thousand men, against a work force of almost 40,000 only 12 months ago.
Does not the Minister now expect a second wave of pit closures? How many pits has British Coal said that it wants to put up for closure? Six? Ten? Fifteen? Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how many? If he cannot tell us how many pits will be left open in April, how can he seriously ask the House to privatise those pits in mid-November?
Last March, the Government claimed that they had reprieved 12 pits. Can the Minister tell the House whether any of those pits will still be open by next March? Will he now admit that the threat of further closures finally exposes the Government's White Paper of last March as a total fraud? Will he admit that his statement today that they have managed to sell extra coal to British Alcan merely throws into relief the fact that not a single bag of coal has been bought by either of the major generators, even though that coal would produce cheaper electricity than any other fuel? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Cheaper than gas, cheaper than nuclear and cheaper than French imports.
The Minister promised us that the White Paper would produce market testing. The market has been tested, and it has been found to be rigged. Why have not the Government taken a single step in the past 12 months to remedy the rigged market that they created? Since it was the privatisation of electricity that created the problem, how do they imagine that it will be solved by privatisation of the pits?
Finally, why did not the Minister find it in himself to acknowledge the tremendous success of Britain's miners in increasing productivity by a third in the past 12 months? Why did he not congratulate them on the fact that most of the market-testing pits now produce coal as cheaply as imported coal? If any other Government in Europe had such efficient pits and such large coal reserves, they would be safeguarding that national resource, not shutting pits down. It is not the miners who should face the sack, but the Ministers who have betrayed them and Britain's coal industry.

Mr. Eggar: Even by the standards of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), that was a grudging response. Surely even he could find it in himself to welcome the extension of the redundancy terms. Surely he could have found it in himself to welcome British Coal's return, as announced today, to the modified colliery review procedure. After all, that was something for which he and his hon. Friends have been arguing for some time.
As for the hon. Gentleman's comments on the 1908 Act, he seems to forget, rather conveniently, that the Trade and Industry Select Committee, which is chaired by a member of his party, pointed out the need for changes in working practices and made it clear that consultation would be needed on the 1908 Act.
No corners will be cut with regard to safety. The preservation of safety in the mining industry is paramount. That is why, as long ago as June last year, I asked the Health and Safety Commission for advice on safety matters if the industry was to be privatised. I have already told the House in my statement that, when we receive the advice from the HSC, it will be made available to the House.
The hon. Gentleman said that somehow the market had been rigged against coal. Let us be clear about how much money the Government have put into the coal industry —£20 billion since 1979. That means £1 million for every miner now working in the coal mining industry, and the hon. Gentleman has the nerve to say that we have rigged the market against coal. Massive amounts of taxpayers' money have gone into the coal industry from this Government.
Nationalisation of the coal mining industry has been part of the industry's problems, not part of its solutions. We believe that the best way to ensure the biggest and most economically viable coal mining industry in the future is privatisation and a commitment by the private sector to make a success of a great British industry.

Mr. Michael Alison: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that probably very few people outside the House have grasped the sheer scale of the £20 billion to which he referred as having been spent by the Government on the coal industry since we took office? If only a fraction of that sum had been spent by Labour Governments, who closed

far more pits than Conservative Governments, there would be far more happy and healthy families in the world outside today.
Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the £20 billion includes a substantial investment in the Selby complex of pits, where high productivity and output produces low costs? Will my hon. Friend continue to concentrate support on those modernised and new pits into which so much investment has been placed?

Mr. Eggar: I completely agree with my hon. Friend about additional investment in British Coal. I think that I am right in saying that £1·5 billion of taxpayers' money was invested in the Selby mine, which, despite initial difficulties, is now operating very effectively and is producing low-cost coal. Considerable commitment has been shown by miners and management at Selby. It is not just that the Labour party closed mines when it was in office; it made commitments to the nuclear industry and to the interconnector. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who I see in his seat, made the commitment to invest in the interconnector.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I associate myself and my party with the remarks from both Front Benches about the families of those involved in the tragedy at Bilsthorpe, which reminded us how dangerous coal mining is. Having said that, it is not an excuse for reducing the industry to virtual extinction.
Having told the House that he would leave no stone unturned in his determination to find a market for coal, what did the Minister do in the summer to stop the continuing erosion of the industry? I welcome the appointment of an energy advisory panel at last, but would not it have made more sense to appoint it 10 years ago, before the Government began privatising the energy industry so that it was not dominated by a free and open market but characterised by monopoly, oligopoly and restriction, which is leaving it at the mercy of that market?
Are not the Government now washing their hands of the industry as they hand it over to a rigged market that will leave few pits in Britain and will lead to the destruction of an asset which the British people asked the Government to save and which the Government said they would save?

Mr. Eggar: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not specifically welcome the appointment of Dr. Martin Holdgate, who was the distinguished chairman of the Renewable Energy Advisory Group. As his party is committed to windmills on a massive scale, I should have thought that it would be keen on that appointment.
The advisory panel will play an important role in assisting my Department in drawing up the energy report, which will be generally welcomed and which was a commitment in the White Paper. Our market for energy must provide an opportunity for the different forms of energy generation to succeed. We believe that the best way to achieve that on behalf of coal is to ensure that it is returned to the private sector.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. Because of the number of hon. Members who are seeking to question the statement, may I ask for brisk questions and equally brisk answers?

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my hon. Friend agree that pessimistic salesmen do not often win new markets? Is he entirely satisfied with the performance of the chairman of British Coal?

Mr. Eggar: British Coal and its chairman have a difficult task to perform, and he is tackling that difficult task with gusto.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: Twelve months ago, on black Tuesday, the closure of 31 pits was announced, since when 21 pits have closed and 20,000 mining jobs and 60,000 related jobs have gone. The Minister is fooling no one. His announcement is preparing the ground for the demise of another 15 pits and another 20,000 miners. I pay tribute to those men who gave their lives at Bilsthorpe and to those who sought to rescue them. I hope that the report is debated in the House, because use of the skin-to-skin technique is normal in Nottinghamshire; the only difference in the system was the roof bolts that were used. We want more examination of that.

Mr. Eggar: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the preliminary report of the HSC on the Bilsthorpe tragedy has been published. It is appropriate to resist making a judgment on the causes until we have the full report. I hope that the report will be with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment next month.

Mr. Richard Alexander: Is it not a matter of regret that, 12 months after the statement by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to the effect that the private sector would be able to take over pits that British Coal did not want, no pits are yet licensed in the private sector? Will my hon. Friend confirm that, prior to privatisation, British Coal will not close or even propose to close any more coal mines until other people have had the opportunity to see if they can make a go of it and find new markets for coal?

Mr. Eggar: I share my hon. Friend's disappointment that British Coal is not yet able to announce the lease and licensing of specific pits. I know that it is involved in detailed discussions about a number of pits, and wholly accepts the need to proceed as quickly as possible. Any possible future closures are a matter for British Coal, but we have made it absolutely clear that in future pits will be offered either for sale or for lease and licensing, if that is the correct way to proceed.

Mr. Richard Caborn: May I put the Minister right on one point? He mentioned working practices. The 1908 Act was superseded by the 1992 legislation on working hours, which was introduced because of the Community directive. He should not mix that up with the point made by the Select Committee.
The announcement by British Coal is more important than the Minister's statement. How many pits are now to go through the modified colliery review procedure? Many believe, rightly, that this is merely a more humane way of shutting the remainder of the 31 pits. The Rothschild report of 1990 said that we would be down to 14 pits.
Will the Minister tell the House what answers he has to the Select Committee's report on opening the market for coal? The Government have not yet responded to that matter, which was posed by the President of the Board of Trade in October last year. They have ducked the issue, and they are letting down not only the miners but the nation.

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman's report—I say it is his report because he was the Chairman of the Select Committee—did refer to the fact that we wished particular attention to be paid to the reform of working hours. It is impossible to deal with that issue without dealing with the important 1908 Act. We have had consultations, and I believe that the Select Committee was in favour of the process. I announced today that I have signed the commencement order.
As for the market for coal, the Government made their position absolutely clear in the White Paper. We said that there was no guarantee of additional markets, and we accepted the Select Committee's recommendation that a subsidy should be made available. We have made that subsidy available, and I announced today that the subsidy will be paid in connection with Ellington colliery for sales to British Alcan.

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: Will the Minister tell the House and the rest of the country, which is listening intently, whether the Government subsidy is available for coal to be exported for electricity generation? If so, what action is British Coal taking to explore such markets?

Mr. Eggar: We look at all applications for subsidy. If people have identified markets for export, we shall consider such applications.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Does the Minister accept that most people regard the Government's stewardship of the £20 billion of taxpayers' investment in the coal industry as astonishing? Does he agree that it is hardly right for him to claim as an improvement the new safety proposals, which would expunge the title and statutory capacity of the colliery deputy? Will he assure the House that neither the British coal industry nor any part of it will be sold to overseas owners whose safety record in their pits is less than satisfactory?

Mr. Eggar: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is referring to what has become colloquially known as the MASHAM package—after the Management and Administration of Safety and Health in Mines Regulations—put forward by the Health and Safety Commission. As the union that sponsors him is currently taking court action against a Government Department, the hon. Gentleman will know that it is impossible for me to comment on that, because it is sub judice.

Sir Cranley Onslow: As a member of the Select Committee, I welcome what my hon. Friend has said, especially his emphasis on the continuing need for safety, and the words about the reform of working practices with which he began his statement. I especially welcome the use of the subsidy for the first time. That subsidy was a key recommendation of the Select Committee, and the Government have accepted it. It is clear from the exchanges, both today and on previous occasions, that the best way forward for the coal industry is to get on with privatisation as soon as possible.

Mr. Eggar: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support, and I very much agree with his last point.

Mr. George Stevenson: Does the Minister accept that his statement represents another cynical event in this shabby process, which abuses the trust that many Conservative Back Benchers put in the


Government about 12 months ago? Will he tell the House what has happened to the promised nuclear review as a result of the White Paper, and what is to be done about the burning of orimulsion in this country? How much of the subsidy, other than what has been announced today, has been used over the past year in seeking markets, which was critical to the future of the collieries?

Mr. Eggar: We shall make an announcement on the nuclear review before the end of the year. With regard to orimulsion, the precise environmental controls, to which I believe the hon. Gentleman referred, are of course the responsibility of the independent inspectorate of pollution. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and his party would not want Government interference in that independent statutory role. Finally, as one of the pits that is the subject of negotiation between British Coal and the prospective purchasers, Trentham, is in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, I am suprised that he did not refer to it.

Mr. Winston Churchill: What steps have Ministers taken to honour the undertakings given to me and to some of my hon. Friends that they would use their best endeavours to carve out a wider market for coal? How many of the reprieved pits does my hon. Friend expect to be in production by the end of the financial year?

Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend has raised a key point, which we accepted by saying in the White Paper that we would follow the Select Committee's recommendation and make a subsidy available. That has been done and, as I have announced today, the first successful subsidy application has been granted. My hon. Friend's detailed question about the number of pits is a matter for British Coal. British Coal's announcement today that it will use the modified colliery review procedure means that it will consult the unions, and it would be wrong to speculate about that.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: Miners in Bilsthorpe and other coalfield communities in Nottinghamshire will welcome the Minister's concern about the accident, but that is about all that they will accept in his statement. That statement confirms that there is no extra market for coal in electricity generation, and that the path to closure is being prepared. It also extends redundancy payments to the spring of next year. What people in Bilsthorpe, throughout Nottinghamshire and throughout the country want to know is whether they will have jobs next spring. They think that they will not. Why does the Minister not come clean now?

Mr. Eggar: I am sure that there will be a wide welcome in Nottinghamshire and in all the coalfields for the announcement to extend the redundancy terms. That point was made to me by the Union of Democratic Mineworkers and by the TUC delegation that came to see me. It is also fair to say that people in the coalfields will unreservedly welcome the return to the MCRP—I believe that the hon. Gentleman urged that course some months ago. As British Coal has announced a return to the MCRP, it is right that that procedure be followed, because it involves careful consultation and discussion with the unions.

Dr. Michael Clark: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, in recent years, all the assistance for which British Coal has asked has been provided by the Government, including the promise of a massive subsidy at the beginning of this year? If not. What help has British

Coal requested which the Government have been unable to give? Will my hon. Friend also confirm that his Department has been working alongside British Coal to try to find markets for coal, and has not been working at arm's length from the company?

Mr. Eggar: We have provided large sums of financial support to British Coal. The level of financial support has not been an issue between the Government and the company. I failed to get my hon. Friend's second question.

Dr. Clark: Are they working together rather than at arm's length?

Mr. Eggar: Yes. The major commitment that we made—making available the subsidy—enabled British Coal to look for additional markets. It has succeeded in finding a market with British Alcan, which is an important development.
As for the wider issues in the discussions with the generators, the chairman has made it clear that he is pessimistic about the outlook. I think that I am right in saying that, in the letter which British Coal has sent to the unions, it has made it clear that it is considering the position with regard to the background market conditions, which are far from good.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Minister aware that the statement that he has made today exposes for all to see the colossal and deliberate fraud perpetrated by the President of the Board of Trade personally and the Cabinet collectively when the review was announced? Authorisation of the importation of coal, of opencast extension, of the dash for gas and of nuclear power at three times the cost give the lie to the idea that there is no market or need for British coal in British power stations.
Is the Minister also aware that, when the industry was privately owned, 1,200,000 miners were injured and 7,800 were killed in a nine-year period in the 1920s and 1930s when the mines were under private ownership? Does not the Minister realise that the public contrast those facts with the actions of the Labour Government who authorised the Selby coalfield and the Drax B power station, and made public—as I did—that the link with France enabled us to export coal from this country by wire to France?

Mr. Eggar: I share the right hon. Gentleman's determination that we should not return to the safety record of the 1930s. That is precisely why, more than one year ago, I asked the Health and Safety Commission for advice on the safety regime in the post-privatisation period. I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman—I think for the first time in the House—has recognised his role with regard to the interconnector. He said that the interconnecter was for exporting coal by wire. If he had paid more attention to the details, he might have realised that it was also there for importing electricity from France.

Mr. William Cash: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that the news today, particularly the rumours circulating that British Coal has suggested that all the pits are up for review, will be met with deep dismay in north Staffordshire, in the light of what happened at Trentham and what is likely to happen at Silverdale?
On the issue of market demand, will my hon. Friend take account of the new technologies available, such as the integrated gasifier combined cycle system currently running in the United States and the topping cycle


announced by and developed by GEC Alsthom in this country? We are told that that will enable us to provide almost inexhaustible supplies of energy from the conversion of coal to gas, with pollution levels comparable to natural gas.
If the Government are seriously interested in applying market demand to innovation and technology, will they provide enough incentives and interests for those developments to take place in the interests of future energy supplies and to ensure that we are not dependent on imports?

Mr. Eggar: I apologise to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) for not picking up that point in my reply to him. The procedure under the modified colliery review procedure—after all, British Coal is resuming it—is that all pits are automatically reviewed. That is what the general review meetings are all about, so there is nothing surprising about that development, and it will be widely welcomed.
As for my hon. Friend's understandable emphasis on the need for expenditure on new technologies in coal, I and the Government agree with him. That is why we have increased expenditure on the coal research establishment by more than 110 per cent. this year. That was announced in the White Paper.

Mr. David Hanson: Is the Minister aware that every action that he has announced will lead to further demoralisation among the miners in my constituency at the Point of Ayr colliery, and will lead to a continued haemorrhage of workers? We have already lost 75 per cent. of the workers from that colliery in the past year.
Will the Minister answer one straight question? Are there any circumstances during the next six months in which he can see himself intervening if British Coal seeks to close a pit such as Point of Ayr?

Mr. Eggar: Of course, any decision about the future of collieries is a matter for British Coal and has to be followed through under the MCRP. I repeat what I have already said: if, by any chance, closure proposals were made and proceeded with after consultation, the Government have made it clear to British Coal, which has accepted this in respect of existing pits, that such pits will be available for lease and licence. We want to give the private sector the opportunity to make a success of pits which British Coal may or may not want to close.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The President of the Board of Trade gave me an assurance in this House some 12 months ago that, if bias against coal were identified in the electricity privatisation legislation in the course of the reviews that his Department was undertaking, that bias would be removed and a level playing field established. Why has not that been done? Can it be sound practice for a Government who are encountering severe economic difficulties—the Budget deficit and the trade deficit—to allow this country to import coal, thereby putting people out of work, when we have some of the finest and most competitive deep-mined coal in the world to offer for sale?

Mr. Eggar: The Government's position in respect of the Electricity Act 1989 is clearly set out in the White

Paper, and we stand by it. Imports of electricity coal are 50 per cent. down this year on last year, and overall imports of coal are 15 per cent. down.

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: Why does the Minister place such great emphasis on the modified colliery review procedure? Is he not aware that many pits that have already gone through that procedure, regardless of their productivity, economic value and viability, have been closed? If there is no market for coal, what is the point of reintroducing this red herring for the miners—as though it were something that would ultimately save them and their industry? Would it not be far better to act instantly by cutting coal imports further, by ceasing opencast mining, and by controlling our oil imports and gas reactor services more closely?

Mr. Eggar: I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman's comments on the MCRP. After all, it was the Select Committee that recommended that it should be used. It was also recommended in an early-day motion tabled by several hon. Members, although I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman signed it. I believe that the unions also welcomed the MCRP.

Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson (New Forest): Will my hon. Friend agree that, although there is a tactical case for contracting the industry, strategically it is essential to retain the four-fuel option of oil, coal, gas and nuclear? Have the Government decided not to press ahead with the mothballing of recoverable resources; and will the new owners be expected to play a part in this so that, should the need arise, the resources can be opened up again?

Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend, whose long commitment to the four-fuel option I recognise, is aware that currently 60 per cent. of our electricity generation comes from coal—which is likely to remain the single largest source of electricity generation for many years to come. On his point about accessing reserves of coal, we agree that that is something that needs to be considered.
However, what is important is not the absolute number of reserves, but the number of economically recoverable. The Select Committee was helpful on that matter, because it pointed out that, roughly speaking, we have about the same amount of economically recoverable coal reserves as we have gas reserves—about the 30 to 40-year mark.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Is the Minister aware that the three pits in my constituency—Harworth, Manton and Welbeck—are the finest in Europe and that their miners have broken every productivity record year in, year out, by the sweat of their backs? Can he give a guarantee to the local Conservative party that the pits will still be open come next election day, or will the miners be laid off by a privatised industry and then set back on again at half the pay and with worse conditions? Will there be seven-day working, with pollution, heavy lorries, traffic and klaxon horns on Saturday and Sunday nights? Will a denigration of the industry be the reward for the miners' hard work? Is not the Minister just polishing the brass plate on the coffin instead of putting the lid on?

Mr. Eggar: The Government made it clear at the last election—and repeated it in the White Paper—that we attach some priority to privatising the coal industry. Given that circumstance, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be stressing the advantages of his mines


and the co-operation of their work forces in making a success of the pits, whether they be in national or private ownership.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: My hon. Friend is aware that various groups of employees in the industry are considering making bids as part of the privatisation process. Can he confirm that financial support for the preparation of those bids will be available for any bids that embrace more than one of the five areas into which British Coal will be divided?

Mr. Eggar: Yes, I can certainly give my hon. Friend that confirmation.

Mr. Eric Clarke: I welcome the fact that the Minister has come to the House to make a statement, but I do not welcome its contents. Will the Minister give us the opportunity to debate the matter in the Chamber? We want to discuss many aspects of the Minister's statement and we would like him to join with us and give us time to do so. I do not want the House to go into recess again—I would rather discuss the matter because it affects people's wages and livelihoods. It certainly affects those whom I represent in one of the areas suggested in the consultative document. Will the Minister join us in seeking time to debate the matter thoroughly?

Mr. Eggar: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are consulting. I am aware that a particular concern of his relates to pensions and concessionary coal. Indeed, he has raised those points with me in Committee. I have sent him the consultation papers, and I look forward to receiving responses both from him and from those of his constituents who have an interest in the matter.
I know that the hon. Gentleman, as an adviser to Mining (Scotland) Ltd., will welcome—as it did—the proposed privatisation structure. I believe that it offers an interesting avenue for Scottish interests, which transcend all political groups within Scotland.

Dr. Keith Hampson: Will my hon. Friend remind Opposition Members who have refused to read the Select Committee report and acknowledge what it says that its first recommendation is to place a high priority on reforming working practices? We have dispelled the myth, so beloved of Opposition Members, that Britain has huge reserves of coal. In fact, the report shows that 50 pits have access closer to 20 rather than 40 years, as the Select Committee put it. The figures are absolutely clear.
If the market for the generation of power had been rigged, as it was, and the generators required to continue buying 70 million tonnes at an artificially high price compared with the world market, everybody's electricity bills—whether domestic or business—would be a lot higher.

Mr. Eggar: It is entirely right that my hon. Friend should seek to set the record straight. I must tell the lion. Member for Sheffield, Central that I do not wish to intrude into private grief, but the pamphlet that he and his Labour colleagues issued in advance of the Labour party conference was a gross distortion of what the Select Committee had actually said.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why does not the Minister come clean and accept that the Government are prepared to throw another 15,000 miners on to the scrap

heap, at a cost to the Exchequer and the public sector borrowing requirement of about £500 million; that they are adding another £1 billion to the balance of payments deficit of £16 billion by importing coal; that they are prepared to go through with their lunatic policy of buying French subsidised electricity, which is throwing another 6,000 miners out of work; and that they are engaging in a conspiracy with British Coal, prior to privatisation, so that Neil Clarke and other members of a consortium will buy out a small number of pits, when all the rest have been closed—in cahoots with the Government—so that Neil Clarke will be able, along with his fellow members of the board, to operate a tiny little industry without any competition whatever? That is the conspiratorial plan between the Government and British Coal. That is why the Minister has made his statement today.

Mr. Eggar: That is an outrageous statement, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not have said it outside the House.
I should also say to the hon. Gentleman that he must look at the figures. Imports of coal are down this year on last. With regard to the French interconnector, perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have had words 15 years ago with his right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn).
Finally, I ask the hon. Gentleman, who from time to time is fair, why he did not refer to the fact that he wrote to me only a week ago on behalf of the NUM general secretary for north Derbyshire, asking for an extension of the redundancy terms. Why did he not thank me for enabling British Coal to do just that?

Mr. Simon Burns: Will my hon. Friend expand on the implications of repealing the Act of 1908, which he announced today? What working practises will be most affected by that decision?

Mr. Eggar: The repeal of the Act, which restricted the number of hours that could be worked, plus winding time and travelling time, was generally recognised throughout the industry to be delaying productivity improvements. There is little doubt that the repeal of the Act will, within proper safety parameters, ensure that the cost of British mined coal comes down further, and therefore that British Coal is better able to compete with other fuels.

Mr. A. J. Beith: On what is otherwise a bleak day for the coal industry, can we read into the Minister's comments about Ellington colliery, which is in my constituency, a real and personal commitment to try to see Ellington through to a successful future, which will depend on the signing of a contract with British Alcan but will also benefit from British Coal having disclosed today that it intends to proceed with development work there?

Mr. Eggar: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. He, with the hon. Members for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) and for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson), came to see me earlier. I understand the particular problems at Ellington, the connection with Lynemouth and also with Blyth power station and Blyth port. I have no doubt that the subsidy will enable British Coal to go on producing from Ellington. I think that I am right in saying that the subsidy covers the whole of British Alcan's needs for coal for the next 18 months. That has important implications for the future of the pit.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, when British Coal announced recently that it was doubling its imports of coal, it was talking about between 400,000 and 800,000 tonnes this year, but that was only for the domestic market and for blending with less superior grades of coal? Is it not perfectly possible that, in private ownership, the mines, with sensible working practices and new technologies, can go after that market and save those imports?

Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend is right. The references in the newspapers were particularly to household and industrial coal imports. The total level of imports is down by 15 per cent.; electricity generation imports are down by 50 per cent. A number of private sector entities that are interested in purchasing mines believe that, by using different mining techniques, they could produce much more household coal and industrial coal than British Coal is currently doing from existing pits.

Mr. Jack Thompson: I welcome the fact that British Alcan and British Coal have come to a conclusion about seeking support from the subsidy, and I congratulate the negotiators, because the relationship between the two has been extremely good. I am pleased that a response may come from this. Of the £500 million made available a year ago, the sums of money involved in that agreement are small.
However, the negotiations with National Power and PowerGen have not been successful. I endorse the earlier criticism of the chairman of British Coal, who has not been able to persuade those companies to take extra coal, but some blame also attaches to the Secretary of State and his Department. In March 1993, in a statement recorded—

Madam Speaker: Briefly, please.

Mr. Thompson: Can I make this point?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will recall that I made a strong plea for brisk questions and answers. Many hon. Members are waiting to be called.

Mr. Thompson: Does the Minister endorse the comment made by the Secretary of State in March 1993, in a report in Coal News? When talking about the use of the subsidy, he said:
I have to talk to them"—
that is, to National Power and PowerGen—
and persuade them that things are possible, and that I am working on them at the moment.
Does that not reflect the lack of salesmanship by the Secretary of State, who has failed in his negotiations with National Power and PowerGen?

Mr. Eggar: Without wishing to ruin the hon. Gentleman's reputation, I want to pay tribute to the constructive role that he has played in the negotiations between British Alcan, the local council and British Coal that led to the agreement. The Government have made it clear that the subsidy for coal will be available on the terms outlined in the White Paper, but if the market is not available and if there is not extra demand for coal, the availability of subsidy cannot expand that market of itself, as everybody accepts.

Mr. Keven Barron: The Minister knows that the problems that faced British Coal last October and that face it now are caused by the shrinking

market for its product. He told the House earlier this year that the Government would provide a subsidy to increase the market, but that subsidy has been available only in the past few weeks. I am pleased that at least one contract has been struck.
When British Coal tried to negotiate for additional tonnages with National Power and PowerGen, the subsidy was not available, as the Minister knows. One of the reasons why a new deal was not struck is that the Secretary of State allows those companies to lift coal from stock for use in the power stations. While that takes place as a result of the inaction of the Government, more coal mines will close, although they are doing everything they can to supply coal efficiently. When will the Government take the action that they promised Parliament and the country they would take earlier this year?

Mr. Eggar: There must have been a misunderstanding. The subsidy has been available—

Mr. Barron: In the past few weeks.

Mr. Eggar: No, it has been available and British Coal was aware that, if it came to us with propositions, we would have processed those applications.

Mr. Barron: That is not true.

Mr. Eggar: Unusually for the hon. Gentleman, he is being unreasonable. The other coal producers applied for subsidies some months ago. Those subsidies have been available.
The hon. Gentleman might like to know that we have been discussing stocks with the generators and they have explained the position to me. They believe that, almost certainly, the stock levels will be above 20 million tonnes at the end of March 1994, and that they could be substantially higher than that. The Chairman of the Select Committee will understand the implication of that.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: I welcome the announcement that Dr. Martin Holdgate is to be chairman of the Energy Advisory Panel. He is well known for his expertise in environmental matters and for his commitment to environmental sustainability as the underlying principle of all economic and industrial policy.
Will the panel have an environmental remit, and will Dr. Martin Holdgate be able to advise how we can avoid a second rape of the fair country of Wales through the expansion of opencast mining, which is both under way and envisaged for the future? How can we make sure that that will be stopped, because it is unacceptable to the people of Wales?

Mr. Eggar: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his tribute to Martin Holdgate. When the names of the advisory panel are published in full, the hon. Gentleman will realise that people with environmental considerations will be at the forefront. That is as it should be.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's comment about opencast, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will publish shortly a full draft consultation of the revised mineral planning guidance.

Mr. John Cummings: The Minister will recall that Budge Mining expressed an interest in Easington colliery which was later withdrawn because of the large amounts of money—several million pounds—involved in underground pumping operations.
The Minister will be aware that pumping operations at Easington are linked inextricably with other pumping stations in the Durham coalfield. If pumping operations cease at Easington and elsewhere in Durham, there will be a serious threat to potable water supplies. Is it the Minister's intention that the successful tenderer for the north-east area meets all the pumping costs, or are such costs to be met by local authorities?

Mr. Eggar: I think that I am right in saying that this is a matter for British Coal. Budge has withdrawn its offer for Easington, so there is no outstanding offer for the colliery.
With regard to the environmental impact of pumping, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that, following debates in the House, detailed discussions are taking place between the National Rivers Authority and British Coal about future pumping operations in the east Durham coalfield. There are serious environmental consequences of the change in pumping practices, and everyone is keen that we should do all we can to avoid any adverse consequences.

Mr. Bill Etherington: It will not have gone unnoticed by my constituents who work at Wearmouth colliery—the last deep mine in Durham—that, not for the first time, the Minister has been selective in emphasising recommendations from the Select Committee report with which he agrees. It is obvious that, if the positive proposals by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry had been adhered to instead of ignored, we would not be in the mess that we are in today.
Does the Minister understand that the massive public and political backlash against the White Paper last October was because the public did not accept the Government's policy which has led to the rigged market? Does he also understand that the public did not expect the DTI to proceed with another form of rigging to ensure that the original proposals were adhered to?
I believe that today's statement will be seen for what it is—political chicanery of the worst type. Will the Minister tell the House how much additional coal is to be sold to British Alcan following today's announcement?

Mr. Eggar: I remind the hon. Gentleman that we published the White Paper, on which the House then voted. We have followed the recommendations of that White Paper.
With regard to the sales to British Alcan, the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) will be able to fill the hon. Gentleman in on the situation. The contract comes to an end at the end of December, but British Alcan has been able to renew the contract for 18 months. That will have positive effects for Ellington, and the subsidy was a critical element in the renewal of the contract.

Mr. Eric Illsley: Will not most of this afternoon's statement simply make it easier for British Coal and the Government to close more collieries in advance of privatisation and so leave a small rump industry to be sold off to people in the City?
Is it not the case that, if we repeal the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1908, we shall decrease safety underground? We are not improving working conditions—that is a misnomer—but extending miners' working hours to about 12 hours. We shall not only decrease safety but increase stocks, and it is stocks for which there is no market that have led to the problem within the coal

industry. It is not up to British Coal to try to find new markets. Only the Government could have found those new markets.
With the return to the modified colliery review procedure, which, incidentally, was not available for the 10 pits, every colliery in the country can go straight into that procedure—with the recommendation at the end of it that that colliery close.

Mr. Eggar: I am not entirely sure whether the hon. Gentleman is in favour of or against the resumption of the MCRP.

Mr. Illsley: It has not kept one colliery open.

Mr. Eggar: Surely, though, the hon. Gentleman is in favour of a system that enables full consultation with the unions, which is well established.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the 1908 Act. He will recognise that there are considerable advantages in allowing more flexibility in working hours than is currently allowed under that Act. As regards the safety implications, of course safety will not be imperilled by the commencement order that I have laid, because safety is governed by rules laid down by the Health and Safety Commission, and those rules will apply regardless of whether or not the 1908 Act is in place.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I welcome the Alcan-Ellington contract, but will the Minister confirm that that contract is only for 18 months? Will he also tell us what subsidy per tonne has been given? Will he take a very serious look at the amount of opencasting that is taking place in Northumberland—approaching 3 million tonnes a year? It seems as though every farmer's field in Northumberland is up for grabs, and we already have 12 applications waiting to be processed. It is really becoming a nightmare.

Mr. Eggar: I understand—although this is a matter for British Coal and Alcan—that the contract is for 18 months and that the subsidy paid is the difference between the contract price and Ellington's production costs. That is the basis set out in the White Paper. However, the details concerning the level of subsidy and the competitiveness of Alcan's position are commercially confidential, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand.
The hon. Gentleman asked about opencasting. I understand his point. That is why my right hon. Friend the, Secretary of State for the Environment will shortly be coming forward with the revised draft guidelines—minerals planning guidance 3—which I understand will be consulted upon. On the other hand, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that it is widely understood in his part of the world that there is a role for large-scale opencast operations, which provide jobs and which provide competitively priced coal necessary for blending. Nevertheless, I take the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Kevin Hughes: The Minister has produced a package that will increase working hours for men working underground, decrease safety underground and open the door for further pit closures. Why does not he come clean—I am sure that he knows—and tell the House which collieries the Government and British Coal intend to close? Can he tell me how anyone can justify closing the two collieries in my constituency—Hatfield, where people are queuing up every day waiting


for the product to come from underground, and Bentley, which is producing coal at less than £1 a gigajoule? How can the Government justify closing those two pits or any other?

Mr. Eggar: The question of working hours is a matter for discussion and negotiation at pit level. The Government are merely laying the commencement order for the repeal of the 1908 Act. There will not be a reduction in safety standards—either in the near future or post-privatisation. The responsibility for safety rests with the Health and Safety Commission, which has a statutory duty under the 1974 Act to ensure that there is no diminution in safety standards.
I understand that the hon. Gentleman was the NUM secretary at Bentley. Surely he knows perfectly well—

Mr. Hughes: indicated dissent.

Mr. Eggar: He is shaking his head—my apologies.
The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the question of closure or non-closure is dealt with under the MCRP as part of the normal consultation procedure. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a very reasonable man: could he not have welcomed the extension of the redundancy terms, particularly as he wrote to me last week and urged me to make money available to British Coal to extend them?

Mr. John Evans: Does the Minister think that at the next general election the electorate will forget that the Conservative party is now in the process of virtually destroying Britain's deep-mined coal industry? Does he think that succeeding generations will ever forgive the Government for leaving millions of tonnes of coal to rot in the ground, as they have done at Parkside colliery in my constituency?

Mr. Eggar: The electorate at the next election will recognise that the Government made it clear in their party manifesto that they wished to privatise the coal industry, and were committed to achieving the largest possible economically viable coal industry in this country. The electorate at the next election will recognise that we have done just that.

Dr. Tony Wright: Is the Minister aware that some hon. Members are receiving letters from the chairman of British Coal in which he says that he can no longer give assurances about the future of any pit—any pit—in the country? That includes pits such as Littleton in south Staffordshire, which, a year ago, was said to be safe. Is that not the real meaning of the Minister's statement today?
Did not Baroness Thatcher write to the Minister a few months ago and say that, unless the Government were prepared to take action to produce a market through a guaranteed tonnage of coal for the generators, we would see the destruction of the British coal industry? Was she not right?

Mr. Eggar: Lady Thatcher did not write to me in those terms. As to the hon. Gentleman's question about pits, all pits go through the process under the MCRP, and are part of the general review meeting. Everyone who is familiar with the MCRP—as other Opposition Members are—recognises that.

Mr. Derek Enright: First, is the Minister aware that miners in my constituency will be enraged by his proposals about safety, for the simple reason that it is their heads and not his that are on the block day in and day out? Secondly, those miners will be extremely cynical about the proposals that are being made to opencast in North Featherstone and South Hiendley—both pleasant country areas—at the same time as pits are being closed. Thirdly, the miners who work in Frickley—and their families—have been in despair for over a year, not knowing what is going to happen to them.
Does the Minister not think it disgraceful that he belongs to a party that claims to be concerned about families, yet he puts families through this misery and hell?

Mr. Eggar: There is no question of imperilling safety. No miner would agree to anything that imperilled safety, no management would seek to impose anything that imperilled safety, and the Health and Safety Executive would never permit changes that imperilled safety—and the hon. Gentleman knows that. As to opencast in his constituency, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I have already said that he will be introducing revised guidelines shortly.

Mr. Harry Barnes: What are the Government's plans for the energy market after coal privatisation? There is a fortune to be made from coal. Will not the existing rigged market have some of its rigging uncoupled after privatisation to enable those who have got their hands on the coal industry and opencast mining to make a fortune?

Mr. Eggar: No, that is not the case.

Madam Speaker: Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. William O'Brien: Always save the best until last.
Nothing that the Minister said today will safeguard any jobs in the mining industry. He makes great play about the extension of redundancy pay. Will he explain who will be responsible for the redundancy pay when that runs out? If miners go into the private sector and their pits close when run by private operators, will those miners receive redundancy pay equal to that which is in the process at present?
Will the Minister give an assurance to the House and to the mineworkers that no foreign mine owner who operates unsafe practices abroad will be allowed to purchase an' interest in the British mining industry under the privatisation plan?

Mr. Eggar: May I just clarify the redundancy terms situation? The Government extend the funding to British Coal that enables it to offer the redundancy payments. In other words, the Government reimburses 90 per cent. of the cost of redundancy terms. The Government announced today, and British Coal confirmed, that we shall continue to fund British Coal until 30 April 1994.
If British Coal were to be involved in closure consultations which begin this year, but which are likely to continue beyond that date, the funding would have to continue because of the implications of the MCRP.
The safety record of purchasers from overseas is one of the factors that will be taken into account, but no decision has yet been taken on the criteria that will be applied during the privatisation process.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: Does the Minister appreciate that, when I contacted British Coal today and asked which collieries would have their prospects reviewed under the review procedure, I was told that all collieries would be considered? Therefore, by definition, all collieries are under threat. When he tells us about the extension of the redundancy payments scheme, a picture begins to emerge of the prospect of far more collieries closing than the ones that we had expected and feared the worst about.
When the Minister tells us about the MCRP, can he confirm that he is merely following the dictates of the decision in the court case which he lost last year, and which he now has to invoke every time that a colliery has to be closed, if the miners want? The MCRP gives little comfort to anyone who has had anything to do with the coal industry in this country, because no collieries that have gone through that procedure have ever survived for any length of time.

Mr. Eggar: I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman received the response from British Coal that he says he did, because everyone who knows how the MCRP works knows that all collieries are involved in the general review meeting which I understand British Coal is likely to call on a regional basis fairly soon—but that is a matter for British Coal and the unions.
British Coal makes the decisions about starting up the MCRP and, as the hon. Gentleman would expect, British Coal has to take into account legal considerations when it makes its decision. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would support that.

Points Of Order

Mr. Allan Rogers: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that yesterday, during the statement by the Secretary of State for Wales about the Welsh Development Agency, he was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) about regenerating the valleys and he replied:
I have announced today the next five-year programme for the Welsh valleys initiative.
Later, on a point of order, I asked the Secretary of State why he did not have the courtesy to come to the House to make the statement so that he could be examined on the content of the initiative, which is of vital concern to us in the South Wales valleys.
You kindly invited the Secretary of State to comment on that point of order. He then said:
I am grateful for the opportunity. I meant to say that I would make a statement tomorrow." [Official Report, 19 October 1993; Vol. 230, cols. 156–57].
I asked that the statement be made to the House.
Today I was waiting, as were my hon. Friends, for the Secretary of State to make a statement to the House so he could be questioned on the content, which is of such vital importance. The Secretary of State has not come. Yesterday, he was confused between yesterday, today and the day before. Has he confused the days again?
I wonder whether you could use your good offices, Madam Speaker, to get the Secretary of State for Wales to come here. At best, he is treating the House with absolute contempt—and I think that he is treating you, Madam Speaker, with the same lack of courtesy—but at worst, he is being economical with the truth, because I understand that today he has gone outside the. House and issued a statement in Wales, where he cannot be questioned or come under parliamentary scrutiny for what he is doing.

Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman and the House are aware, Ministers determine for themselves whether they make a statement orally at the Dispatch Box or choose to do so by means of answer to a written question. The best I can do is to refer the hon. Gentleman to written question 356, which was answered today by the Secretary of State for Wales. It became available at 3.30 and is headed "Programme for the Valleys".

Mr. Ron Davies: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker, we all understand that the question' to which you refer was tabled after the Secretary of State had given an assurance to the House. What compounds the error is that, yesterday morning, the Secretary of State took it upon himself to conduct an extensive press briefing. Thirty-six hours before Members of the House with a direct constituency interest, the press knew of the nature of the statement that the Secretary of State was making this afternoon. It is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) said, a blatant disregard of the rights of Members of the House with a direct constituency interest.
I would ask that you reflect on previous rulings that you have given to the effect that, when Ministers have statements to make, they should be made in the House before statements are made to the press.

Madam Speaker: I have always taken the view, as the House knows, that, when a Minister has a statement to


make, he should make it here to hon. Members who are elected, rather than outside the House. We now proceed with our business.

BILL PRESENTED

FORMER CABINET MINISTERS (INTERESTS)

Mr. David Winnick presented a Bill to prohibit former Cabinet Ministers, within a period of five years after leaving office, from accepting any employment with or payment from a company which was privatised while they were members of the Cabinet or which had a commercial or contractual relationship with a Department of State for which or in which they had ministerial responsibility: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 22 October, and to be printed. [Bill 253.]

Human Organ Transplants (Amendment)

Mr. John Heppell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Human Organ Transplants Act 1989 further to provide for the circumstances in which an organ may be retrieved from a dead person for the purposes of transplant; to require the anonymity of the donor and the recipient; to define death for the purposes of that Act of 1989 as the total and irreversible loss of brain function; and for connected purposes.
I notice that the Minister for Energy had so much support for his statement that hon. Members have disappeared from the Government Benches. I hope that when I make my contribution I do not empty the rest of the Benches.
The main purpose of the Bill is to do away with the current opt-in system for donors of kidneys and other human organs, and to bring in a new opt-out system, under which it will be presumed that people are willing to donate their organs unless they have expressed a wish not to do so.
Every year, the number of people who have transplants in this country grows. Last year, more than 5,000 people had major organ transplants. Thousands of other people would have benefited from cornea transplants, heart valve transplants, bone grafts or bone marrow transplants, and the only reason that those operations did not go ahead was the lack of donors.
Many other countries recognised the difficulties in obtaining donors and chose opt-out schemes several years ago. Those countries include France, Belgium, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Israel. They have a higher rate of donors for heart transplants as a result. Let us compare. Austria manages to achieve a rate of 53 donors for every million of its population each year and Belgium manages 40 per million, but the United Kingdom receives only 30 per million. If we could achieve the same record as Austria, 1,000 more kidneys would be available for transplant, and 1,000 people would be spared the indignity of constant dialysis and would effectively be given a new lease of life.
There are 4,000 people on dialysis machines in this country, and they need them to stay alive. However, because they stay alive, people believe that that is an end to the problem, and see dialysis as a cure. It is not. People would realise that it is not a cure if they spent a major part of their life—three times a week—attached to a machine. They would realise that it is not a cure if they had to suffer the pain and discomfort of constant dialysis.
If people knew that their child could have rosy cheeks and be healthy instead of being pale and weak, they would realise it. If they had seen the knots caused by the constant insertion of needles in people's arms, legs, stomachs and elsewhere on their bodies, they would realise that dialysis is not a cure. People must recognise that children who are on dialysis will still be on it when they die. For them, the transplant will never come. If it did, the transplant would not merely keep them alive but would give them life.
I am sure that I am not alone in having carried a donor card for many years. I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members do the same, because they have made a conscious decision that, after their death, they want one, or several, of their organs to be available to help other people. They have a right to have their views considered, and people should respect their wish.
If I had requested to be buried or cremated after my death, I think that everyone would respect my wishes. I think that they would respect them if I said that I wanted my ashes to be scattered across the Nottingham Forest football pitch, or the Oval or in the Thames or Trent. So why, when I say that I want my body to be used to help other people after my death, is my view so blatantly ignored?
For years I was under the illusion that I had already made the choice, as I carried a donor card, which meant that my organs would be used to help someone else when I died. I now know that when I die—I nearly said, if I die —my choice will not be respected. If I am involved in an accident, even if the donor card is found on me, my next of kin will be asked for their permission for my organs to be used.
I find that totally unacceptable. It is my choice, not my wife's, my son's or my daughter's. If I am involved in an accident, I do not want someone to ask my wife whether they can have my organs. It would probably be a doctor she had never seen before. I do not want her to suffer that sort of trauma while I am lying dead in hospital or on a mortuary slab. I do not want her to suffer that sort of pain at such a time. If my organs can be of use, I want my body to be used for other people.
It is time for us to accept that the present system is inadequate.

Dr. Joe Hendron: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Interventions are not allowed in ten-minute Bill speeches.

Mr. Heppell: The present system was introduced 22 years ago, in 1971. Ten years ago, a Gallup poll showed that 70 per cent. of the population were willing to donate their organs, and a recent poll showed that 72 per cent. would be willing to do so. There has been little variance during those years. However, only 18 per cent. of people carry kidney donor cards, and, as I have explained, those cards are not a guarantee that one's organs will be donated. To me, that smacks of failure.
After all the campaigns and education, it is time to consider a different means of organ donation. A recent poll

of transplant doctors showed that 40 per cent. were in favour of an opt-out system; 31 per cent. were in favour of the present system; and 29 per cent. were prepared to work with either system. I agree that that result is not conclusive, and that there is no overwhelming majority. However, in all the reviews carried out during the past few years, the public seem generally to accept the idea of opting out, and it gets more support as time goes by.
The most recent public poll, conducted by the British Kidney Patient Association, shows that 61 per cent. of the population are in favour of an opt-out scheme for donors. On top of that, the overwhelming majority of recipients of organs are in favour, as are people who are waiting for an organ. I think that such a scheme is sensible.
When hon. Members decide about the Bill, I want them to concentrate on two things, because this is what it all comes down to. The first is the needs of recipients and the second the wishes of donors.
The needs of recipients are fairly clear. Any hon. Member, or their wife, daughter, son or grandchild, may require a transplant, so I hope that they will bear that in mind when they decide. The idea that, as a donor, when I die my eyes could give someone sight, my kidneys could give someone a better quality of life and my heart could give someone life itself is very reassuring to me. It means that death has less of a sting. I want hon. Members to give me the chance to make that choice and to have that consolation. The Bill will do just that.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Heppell, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. David Hanson, Mr. Keith Hill, Mr. John Gunnell, Mr. Paddy Tipping and Mr. Gerald Bermingham.

HUMAN ORGAN TRANSPLANTS (AMENDMENT)

Mr. John Heppell accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Human Organ Transplants Act 1989 further to provide for the circumstances in which an organ may be retrieved from a dead person for the purposes of transplant; to require the anonymity of the donor and the recipient; to define death for the purposes of that Act of 1989 as the total and irreversible loss of brain function; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 5 November, and to be printed. [Bill 254.]

European Economic Area Bill [Lords]

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That in respect of the European Economic Area Bill [Lords], notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Since the two motions on the Order Paper are related I can allow them to be debated together and so it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following motion:
That, if the European Economic Area Bill [Lords] be committed to a Committee of the whole House, further proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed and that, as soon as the proceedings on any Resolutions come to by the House on the European Economic Area Bill [Lords] [Money] and [Ways and Means] have been concluded, this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.

Mr. Newton: In the light of what you have just said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak briefly about the second motion at the same time.
I do not need to detain the House for a great length of time. It is perhaps unusual for the House to be debating the motions in this way and I shall give the background as a fact, rather than as a conclusive argument. It has been agreed through the usual channels that the Bill should be taken through all its stages tomorrow [Interruption.]—I said that I was stating it as a fact and not an argument, but the House should be aware of it.
In the light of that agreement, it has also been agreed that we should make what are well-established procedural arrangements—that is what the resolutions do—for that to be done in a way that Members have historically found helpful and with which the House is familiar, so that the debates can proceed in an orderly fashion. I again emphasise that they are well precedented and in line with the practice that has been used on many occasions. However, as there were objections on two occasions when we sought to move them at other times—and I make no complaint about that—I have to ask the House to spend some time on them today.
The first motion allows amendments to be considered in Committee to be tabled before Second Reading. As I have said, the House is familiar with that procedure, which is used when all stages are proposed to be taken in one day. That allows the orderly tabling and printing of amendments in time for the Committee stage, which will immediately follow tomorrow's Second Reading. The second motion simply allows the Money and Ways and Means resolutions to be considered. That is again normal after Second Reading.

Mr. William Cash: These would be starred amendments. Has my right hon. Friend heard from Madam Speaker or from the Speaker's Office whether they would be treated as normal amendments and therefore automatically taken tomorrow?

Mr. Newton: It is for the Chair to determine that, but it is well within the experience of many hon. Members that in such cases and against the background of the resolution, the Chairman would not wish to rule that out. Perhaps it would be helpful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to have some guidance.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I may assist the House by saying that as Chairman of Ways and Means I am prepared to accept starred amendments.

Mr. Newton: I hope that that helps my hon. Friend: it is certainly helpful to me in dealing with this matter.
The whole of tomorrow has been set aside for proceedings on the Bill and the associated financial resolutions. I understand that that was agreed through the usual channels, and the time allowed should be adequate properly to consider the principle and detail of a Bill whose straightforward objective is to incorporate into United Kingdom law an agreement between the European Community and EFTA to extend the benefit of the free movement of goods, services, capital and people throughout the area.
That agreement has widespread support, and its supporters include the overwhelming majority of Opposition Members. I did not say all Opposition Members in view of the muttering that I hear from time to time. All that we seek to do is to advance discussion of that matter in an orderly and sensible way.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that the motions are fairly narrowly drawn and that the debate on the merits of the Bill is for tomorrow.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Of course I shall not attempt to discuss the Bill's merits today. However, in view of the nature of the Bill and of the treaty to which it refers, perhaps you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will allow me to make some animadversion. The Leader of the House let the cat out of the bag when he spoke at least two or three times about the usual channels. That phrase was first used in the 1920s or 1930s and referred to a procedure that was not even officially in operation. This House is not for the Front Bench of either party; it is for the representatives of the people, and long may that be so.
The Leader of the House and those associated with him have said that people should have realised that the Government intended to take the Bill in one day. In his notice of 22 July for this week's business—we all remember 22 July because it was the great social charter day—the right hon. Gentleman gave details of proceedings on the Bill. One would have needed a highly attuned ear to know that his announcement was about all stages of the Bill being taken in a day. I admit that textually and in pure terms one might have inferred that, but in the circumstances of that day and other circumstances that I put to the Leader of the House, I do not think that that was so.
The right hon. Gentleman has been here for some time and will know that it is not altogether unknown for a Leader of the House to say when announcing the following week's business that following Second Reading of a Bill other stages may be taken. However, he did not say that on 22 July. Therefore, even for those of us who try to keep up with these matters, Monday was the first day on which we saw on the Order Paper textual amendments or rules that would override the normal Standing Orders or courtesies of the House and permit the Bill to be taken tomorrow in one go. That was why I took the liberty of objecting on Monday


after 10 o'clock. I was trying to prevent that happening, and if I had not objected the dye would have been cast at 10 o'clock on Monday night or yesterday.
I do not object to the first motion, which simply alerts us to when the Government will allow amendments to be tabled. Perhaps they could have been tabled yesterday, which would have been short notice. The second motion contains the guts of the matter. It says that after Second Reading tomorrow, however long that may be, and after the accompanying money resolution—and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has often said, such resolutions are important—and after the relevant Ways and Means motion, which is not just gobbledygook, the House will grant permission to expand the area of taxation. That matter is central to the historic powers of the House. The debate is open ended, although the closure can be moved. The motion says that after that the
House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.
Second Reading entails discussion of principles and explanations. I agree that some Bills could be taken in a day. One such Bill was the one that nationalised Rolls-Royce, but in that and other cases there was a need for speed and the intention, method and principle were clear. Although the details of such Bills are matters for dispute, agreement is usually between all hon. Members, not simply a matter of Front-Bench speakers ganging up.
This is not such a Bill. It contains only five clauses, but I defy any hon. Member to say what it is all about. It is twice as obtuse as the famous Maastricht Bill, and the treaty to which it relates has 550 pages and is about three times as obtuse as that Bill. It is not an ordinary Bill, nor is the treaty an ordinary one, yet we are being asked to take it in one day.
Bills are taken in stages to enable their purpose, effects and results to be properly debated. If a Bill is not taken on the Floor of the House by resolution it goes to Committee, and by convention two weekends elapse before the Committee meets. The Committee of Selection has to appoint a Committee and there is time for the Bill's purpose—in this case the purpose of the treaty—to be advertised and for people to make inquiries and table amendments. That leads to proper scrutiny in Committee. No such opportunity has been made available in this case and there are many questions about the treaty. I shall not go into all of them, but Switzerland is mentioned, although I understand that that country will not be party to the treaty in the same way. Many issues arise.

Dr. Norman A. Godinan: Does my hon. Friend think that the Bill requires a Special Standing Committee so that it may be scrutinised effectively?

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend raises an interesting issue. I have not thought of such a Committee, but my hon. Friend may be right about that, although I do not think that this is the type of Bill for which such a Committee should be established. Of course, such a Committee would enable us to ask Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers to give evidence. However, the Government have not considered that, and in any case I object to the speed and not to the procedure. That time scale does not give anyone time to think, to find out, to write letters or to make telephone calls. If we are properly to scrutinise matters relating to our relationships with the Community to which

the Government have committed themselves, why the need for speed? Why could not we have had the Committee stage even—I am not suggesting an ideal—after 10 o'clock some time next week or a few days later, let alone within only a few hours or minutes of the Second Reading?
I was accosted when arriving this morning by a colleague who said, "I hear you objected last night. You have precipitated a debate tomorrow. What mischief are you up to now, Nigel?" It is not my mischief, but the mischief of the Government. We do not have conventions in the House or ways of conducting business without good cause. When they are dispensed with, there must be a motion to do so. If it is a genuine reason, there is usually no problem. But there is a problem here and the Leader of the House should tell us why because the Bill is about the prerogative. Not only is the treaty conducted, and the negotiations to which it relates, by prerogative, but the consequence is that we will mix Foreign Office prerogative powers with obligations in legislation and, indeed, obligations in taxation. We all know from experience what that prerogative is. I quote from the explanatory memorandum to the Bill:
Section 2(1) of the 1972 Act will apply so as to give legal effect in the United Kingdom to present and future provisions of the Agreement
—that is the treaty—
which, under the Treaties, are to be given legal effect without further enactment.
I remind the Leader of the House that the House does not have a good record in regard to proper scrutiny. I understand that the Select Committee on European Legislation wanted debates about general post office matters in the Community and did not get them. Rushing the Bill through in one day without an opportunity for reflection or to table amendments after Second Reading at least raises the big question "why?". The Government are devoted to open government, so they say. This looks like a closed shop between the two Front Benches.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I hope in all sincerity that the Leader of the House will think carefully about the wisdom of shoving through a massive and important Bill and effecting the equivalent of a treaty or agreement in one day with Second Reading, Committee stage, Report stage, money resolutions and Third Reading.
There are only three reasons of which I can think for doing all that in a day. The first is that everyone agrees to it. The Leader of the House correctly said that everyone is agreed, but why? He specifically said that the Labour party had agreed with the Government that all the stages should be completed in a 24-hour sweep. We should pay attention to that. We understand that the Labour party, for the same reasons as the Conservative party, has found EC issues rather divisive of late—partly because of the failure to have a referendum on Maastricht. As long as we are discussing the EC, members of the Labour party and Conservative party will disagree, fight Whips, use obscene words in all kinds of places and, when we vote, all kinds of things will happen. The wish of the Government and the Opposition to hurry through the Bill is not valid.
The second reason for doing all that in a day would be if the Bill was non-controversial. The Government could argue that it is non-controversial, but they should ask themselves why. We know that the countries of EFTA say that they want an agreement in the same way as the


Government. That is as if, for example, the recipients of social security were to give £1 to the Conservative party and £1 to the Labour party and were then asked if that were preferable to not having social security. Most people would say that even if they had to give money to the Labour and Conservative parties, they would rather have the remaining social security. EFTA countries are anxious to have the agreement not because they regard it as a bonus, but because it is the only way in which the EC is prepared to allow them continuing free trade.
To the countries of EFTA it is a significant agreement. They will become involved in a mass of bureaucracy. Clearly we cannot consider the merits of the Bill in this debate, but if the Leader of the House considers title V on page 59 of the agreement, he will see that, as a consequence of the Bill, poor countries will have to go through the most absurd, ridiculous bureaucracy to engage in normal trade. The second thing that he will see if he looks at the agreement properly is that the countries of EFTA will have to change a mass of laws to abide by European laws. The House of Commons Library has said that about 60 per cent. of all the laws passed by the EC must be adopted by EFTA, whether it wants to or not. Article 4 of protocol 31, for example, says that all the education, training and youth provisions will have to be adopted by EFTA, even though the Parliaments and Governments may not want them.
Page 212 says that all the social provisions passed by the EC will have to be applied to EFTA whether the countries want it or not, as well as all the laws on consumer protection. Page 215 shows that there is a pile of cash that will have to be paid out in an assessment of contributions. All that is significant for Europe as a whole and for Britain in particular.
If we are to pass a Bill which is linked to an agreement that forces the countries of EFTA to adopt a mass of laws, directives, rules and requirements that their Parliaments are not going to take part in deciding, it should be discussed at length.

Mr. Ian Taylor: I do not wish to prolong the debate, which is on a point of procedure, but my hon. Friend should recognise that the matter of which laws are attached to the treaty is one for the individual countries. Is not it significant that the EFTA Governments want to join the European Community ultimately, not just the European economic area, because they understand the importance not only of the economic benefits, but of the political benefits, as the Prime Minister of Sweden said at the fringe meeting of the Conservative party conference?

Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend is totally out of date. If he considers the recent elections in Norway and the opinion polls there, it is apparent that the last thing in the world that the Norwegians want to do is to join the EC—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not possible under the motion to discuss the merits of the present political feelings in Norway.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was misdirected by my hon. Friend. It is rather unfortunate that my hon. Friends say silly things to force me to contradict them and be out of order, which never happens

to me under my own volition. I am always glad to receive interruptions, but it is unfair of my hon. Friend to interrupt me and try to drive me out of order.
Is the agreement significant for Britain? I am sure that we know, as we have all had communications with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, that the Bill will have devastating consequences for Gibraltar and its economy by introducing further discrimination. That is certainly what the Chief Minister and his Cabinet think. They are worried that throughout the proceedings Britain has been neglecting Gibraltar shamefully. We should discuss such an issue in good time and not late at night. It stands out a mile that the Bill is significant. It is not non-controversial, but it is a measure of great constitutional significance which involves a change in democracy in Europe and is of great significance to Gibraltar.
The third reason that may be given for rushing the Bill through in a day is that it is of no consequence to Britain, the Treasury and its policy. I could give a multitude of examples why that is not the case, but I shall mention just one.
From looking at the financial effects of the Bill, one can see that it will add enormously to the Government's social security costs. I hope that all the civil servants have looked at that point. The Bill refers to the fact that there will immediately be about £1 million extra for social security. My constituents and your constituents, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will have to pay for that.
I want to talk about that point, especially in reference to what is loosely called "one of our Cabinet Ministers" at the Conservative conference. I do not know whether any hon. Members here today heard him. He talked about "Euroscroungers" and alleged that people were coming from the EC to have a holiday in Britain at the taxpayers' expense. That would now appear to apply to people from EFTA.
If a Bill that will increase the extent of Euroscrounging is passed, will the Government tell us what they can do about it? We heard a statement from a Minister at the party conference. Although Ministers are all splendid people who have high principles, and who are very kind to children and to dogs, I have sometimes found that Ministers' statements do not turn out exactly as one would think.
We should decide on and discuss this matter so that we have policies that are important for Europe, policies that are desperately important for Gibraltar and policies that are important for the British taxpayer, who will have to pay a lot of extra money as a consequence of the Bill.
A fourth argument that could have been used was that there was a tight timetable. Let us suppose that the Government were rushed off their feet and that we had no time because of a mass of legislation that was to be discussed very soon. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, know what the score is. We have had a very long summer break. We are told that we shall have another big break before the Queen's Speech and that we shall have a long Christmas holiday. Largely because of the massive surrenders of power to Brussels, there is not really much to do here.
I dare to suggest to the Government that the one argument that they cannot use is that we do not have parliamentary time. We have had loads of parliamentary time with precious little to do, so there is no reason why we cannot have Second Reading one day and the Committee stage the next.
Apart from the point about democracy, I ask the Government, "Please can we start to look for solutions?". All we are asking is to have Second Reading tomorrow and to have some time next week or the week after for the Committee and Report stages. We are asking only for two days: one for Second Reading and one for the Committee. What is wrong with that? If the Government agreed to that, everyone would be happy. In fairness, I point out that the majority of hon. Members are not listening to this debate and have probably never heard about the agreement about which we are talking. However, if the Government agreed to my suggestion, the problem would be solved and finished.
With the Maastricht treaty, the whole problem could have been solved if we had had a referendum, but the Government chose not to do so. We could solve the problem with the Railways Bill tomorrow if the Government said that there would be no foreign railway companies as well as no British Rail. I appeal to the Leader of the House, "Please start looking for solutions." All we are asking is for one day for Second Reading and one day for the Committee and Report stages.
I and many other older hon. Members—it is mainly older hon. Members here today, with the exception of one or two of my hon. Friends—have seen democracy dying in this House. There is no point in people trying to forget about that; we all know that it has been happening. There was a time when we used to discuss things, when we used to debate them and when we used to have fights. Sadly, with the help of, I am afraid, the Foreign Office, democracy is largely dying.
Here we have legislation that is terribly important for Europe, terribly important for the taxpayer and terribly important for democracy. With the agreement of Labour Front-Bench Members, Ministers and, possibly—I do not know—Liberal Democrat Members, we are being asked to shove the Bill through in one day. They say, "Let us get it over with. Let us get it finished. Do not talk about it. Do not vote on it."
I have been appalled to hear that the Government have tamed the Labour party with a one-line Whip. The last thing in the world that I want to do is to attack parties and to say, "We are the goodies and they are the baddies," but I must say that that is not the way to run a democracy. I tell the Leader of the House that something worrying has been happening in Britain. We are shoving through legislation using brutal methods. We are shoving it through at a breakneck speed. Probably at 3 am or 4 am, we shall be talking about something fundamental to the future of the people of Gibraltar, fundamental to British taxpayers and fundamental to the future of Europe. We shall also be passing legislation that will require the good people of Norway, of Sweden and of the other EFTA countries to adopt and to implement laws which they did not discuss and to which they did not contribute. That is not right.
I know that the Leader of the House is a fair person. I had the pleasure of sharing a platform with him at the Oxford Union last week. We had much in common and we agreed on at least one point. I say to him in all sincerity, "Surely, for the sake of democracy, we should have two days to discuss the Bill." It is a massive treaty and a very important Bill. It will cost my constituents a lot of money. It will cause a great deal of injustice. Surely we can talk about that and debate it. I can see no reason for not

agreeing to what we want, except for the fact that Labour Front-Bench Members and the Government have done a deal. Surely that it not a proper explanation.
I make it clear that the last thing in the world that I intend to do is to cause trouble over this matter. We know that when the bells ring, the vast majority of the troops will pour in, and will go into the Lobbies and ask what they are voting about. There is no point in having a row. I simply appeal to the Government to remember that democracy matters and to remember that freedom matters. Even though fat Whips will sit smiling away and will use abusive language to try to get legislation through, that is not what matters. What matters is the power belonging to the people. We represent the people and we are meant to decide matters properly and fairly. We are not supposed to have dirty, squalid deals being done between Front-Bench Members of each party.
Let us, therefore, have a proper and reasonable solution. Let us have two days instead of one. Let us cut down our extra, glorious holiday by one day. Let us represent the people and stand up for the people. Once again, we should remember what Bob Marley said in his great song. It is time for us to stand up, to wake up and to start fighting. If we do not do that, we may as well close down this place, we may as well all go home and we may as well forget about the whole idea of democracy.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) said that there should be two days of debate. I have reason to believe that, before the long recess, Labour Front-Bench Members put forward the proposition that there should be two days. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) may intervene in this debate and he may be able to confirm that. The fact that that was the proposition needs to be put on the record.
When I came in here, I thought, "Here we go again." It is like Maastricht all over again. It is as if the House of Commons in recent years is besotted with the idea of the Common Market. There is an alternative argument to the argument that we should have a long time for the Bill, which is what the hon. Member for Southend, East has just proposed. There is an argument that we should not be messing about with this thing at all.
Everybody knows that the Common Market has been an unmitigated disaster. We have just had a short debate and questions and answers on the coal industry—

Mr. Spearing: It was a statement.

Mr. Skinner: We had questions and answers about the demise of the coal industry. One point which was not made then but which has been made many times is that the Common Market was set up, presumably, to produce economies of scale so that countries could trade with one another. Yet they do not buy a single cobble of British coal even though it is the cheapest in the whole of the Common Market. The whole thing has been a fraud from beginning to end.
Here we are, going off again on another tangent to deal with EFTA. It is always the same with these Common Market fanatics. They always say that one can never get perfection in the Common Market unless one does something else. In the beginning, they said that the Common Market would produce jobs. They said that if we passed the Common Market Bill in 1971, when the grocer


was in charge, unemployment would be written off the map. What happened? When we went into the Common Market in 1973, there were about 700,000 people out of work. With the help of this Tory Government and the Common Market, more than 4 million people in Britain do not have a job—I do not believe the fiddled figure of 3 million.
What do the Common Market fanatics, including Liberal Democrats, who are besotted with the idea say? They say that we shall have to have direct elections to the Common Market. They say that if we have direct elections, we shall be able to produce all the jobs about which we talked before. They say that we shall feed the third world. Do hon. Members remember that story? All those people said that we would feed the third world. There are now more people in Africa and in other third-world countries starving than at any time this century. What is being done with Common Market food? It is being destroyed.
After that, the Common Market fanatics tried another gamble, and that was to increase the number of nation states. First it was six, then it was seven and now they have upped it to 12 and still we are not reaping the so-called benefits from the Common Market. The truth is that we can never have the benefits.
As a socialist, I want to make it clear to everybody, including the Labour Front Bench, that I do not believe that we can resolve the problems of the working class in Britain with the help of that Tory Helmut Kohl and that Tory in France, Balladur. I believe that we have to build socialism wherever we are. If that means association with other people, so be it, but we have to prove that it was there in the first place.
We have had the Maastricht treaty that was supposed to produce wonderful things for Britain and get people back to work. They are still on the dole. We have a massive balance of payments deficit with every Common Market country, yet when we started we had a trading surplus with those countries. We have a public sector borrowing requirement of more than £50 billion. What is the Common Market contributing to that? Nothing—it is making it worse all the time. What is it all about? Is it doing the British citizen any good at all? It takes £20 a week from every family in Britain to prop up a tinpot common agriculture policy to line the pockets of the rich farmers.

Sir Teddy Taylor: That figure was reviewed by one of the Treasury Ministers last week. It is now £24 extra a week for the average citizen, not £20. The hon. Gentleman's figures are wholly out of date.

Mr. Skinner: There we have it. That proves my point. We discussed it in the Maastricht debate, and the figure was £20 a week. Parliament has been in recess—our euphemism for a holiday—for about 11 weeks and what has happened? The amount has gone up to £24 a week. It is no wonder we have a public deficit on the PSBR and the Government want to enlarge it even more, at least on the economic front.
They talk about a level playing field. There is no such thing in world economics. It is impossible. How can we produce food on the same basis as Mediterranean countries and fruit like they can in California? I have never heard

such claptrap as people saying that we need the EFTA countries in to produce a more level playing field. As a socialist I believe in intervening in the economy.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Shame.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman says, "Shame" because he believes in the market system. I do not believe that it is possible to produce things in the same way in every single nation state.
The British people know that the Common Market has failed. They know that it is not what it was before. They can see mass unemployment in all the Common Market countries. They can see the rise of neo-fascism in Germany, Italy and France and now it is beginning to rear its ugly head in Britain. What has the Common Market done for them? Nothing at all.
It is time that people understood that there comes a moment when we have to accept that treaties such as the Common Market treaty, the Maastricht treaty and the one they are proposing now do not last any longer. Treaties between nation states do not last forever and we have seen the best inside the Common Market.
I am not hoodwinked by the business of incorporating the EFTA countries to make it all better. It will not make things better; it is defunct. We can talk about it, we can talk a donkey's hind leg off for three or four days, or even a fortnight—I will be here. I do not mind seeing the Tories ripped apart on this issue. In fact, I am on the horns of a dilemma. Would it be a good idea to spend a fortnight discussing this matter? We would have to have a splash-plate in front of us to stop Tory blood splashing us.
The Labour Front Bench should have been smarter. They should have said, "Let us have a fortnight on it. We can get all the Tory rebels back into business and Lady Thatcher could have little seminars to tell them what to do. It would be hilarious." I am beginning to think that it would be a good idea. We could scrap the fortnight's recess. Is anybody in favour of that?
They tell us that on 4 November we are to pack up again for another fortnight. Will anybody volunteer to talk about the EFTA thing for a fortnight? I can see one, two, three volunteers, and I shall be here. It would be better than VAT on fuel. I would settle for debating this thing instead of having VAT on fuel. I would settle for debating it instead of shutting the pits or taking action against some of the impoverished people in Britain, in the knowledge that it will not get us anywhere but at least it will divide the Tory party even more.
You heard it all before, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when you where chairman of the Committee on the Maastricht Bill. They were pulling the wool over people's eyes. We are now at it again, all because 30 years ago some people had the daft idea that somehow or other we could call on other nation states to resolve problems that we did not have the guts to resolve ourselves. That applies to both sides of the House. That is roughly what it is about.
People are elected here to be Members of Parliament in Britain. They say, "We would love to get you better pensions but we cannot, we would love to find you employment but we cannot, we would love to be able to do all these things to make your lives better"—but in the real world we have to go with a begging bowl to Helmut Kohl, to France and to the rest.
It is an abdication and a dereliction of duty. We are about to debate another piece of that escapism that makes my blood boil.

Mr. William Cash: On 25 September, the Prime Minister wrote an article in The Economist saying:
Some differences in the Community are stark and simple. We counted the financial cost of our membership. Others counted their financial gain.
He continued with the point I want to emphasise:
We subjected each proposal to the scrutiny of Parliament. They relaxed in the sure knowledge that their public opinion uncritically endorsed the European idea. Hang the detail. Never mind the concession of power to Brussels. Maastricht changed all that.
We seem now to be faced with yet another enormous raft of legislation. It is impossible for anybody to begin to imagine how much there is in the papers we are expected to get through in one sitting tomorrow afternoon. Although I personally do not believe it would be necessary to have an extended debate of the kind that we had before, we must consider the sheer volume of this stuff.
One has only to look at the references, each one of which is absolutely massive in its own right, and then realise that it is being amended in its application to the European economic area as well as to the United Kingdom, to realise that this rather shabby, behind-the doors deal between the Front Benches is a travesty of our democratic system. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) made a very important point about the way in which democracy in the House is being drained away. This is a typical example.
It may come as a surprise to many hon. Members that I did not particularly enjoy much of the debate on the Maastricht treaty, but I knew that it was essential that, in procedural terms, we ensured that we examined properly the detail and matter in the Bill and the treaty.
I shall make just one more point, because there is no need to go into matters in great detail today. In the preamble and the provisions of this massively complicated agreement, there is a reference to the relationship between Parliaments. We are being asked in this sittings motion to consider the impact upon our democracy when the matter is debated at short notice and in short time tomorrow.
Hon. Members may not know that it effectively bypasses the British Parliament for the following reason: it deals with the relationships between the European Parliament and EFTA national Parliaments, yet we are being asked to implement the provisions in a Bill which affects our constituents.
If I could find any excuse for that, it would be—this may have escaped the notice of some hon. Members—that the Bill came here from the House of Lords on 25 November 1992, 11 months ago. Surely, in the aftermath of, and having regard to, the debates on Maastricht, we could at least have been given an opportunity to consider the Bill in a reasonable and proper manner. "Maine's Ancient Law" contains the maxim:
Justice is to be found in the interstices of procedure.
The motion is a travesty of that maxim.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I, too, strongly object to the way in which, yet again, the Government are using Parliament as some sort of legislative convenience. It is quite outrageous that, when a Bill of this importance

is being considered, the Government, because of their majority, will introduce a timetable motion that will sweep to one side the very important considerations involved in the Bill.
In years to come, when the Government are producing delegated legislation through Ministers, they will refer to section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972, which is also referred to in the Bill, because that is the section that gives the administrative machinery extra power to produce delegated legislation and to bypass this House.
As the Leader of the House knows—I have raised the matter several times—timetable motions sweep Bills through the House without adequate debate and without adequate time to table amendments and to have a proper Committee stage. There is a different pattern of consideration for other Bills, so the House presumably regards the longer period allotted to them as adequate. If the time available for this Bill is to be curtailed, by definition that amount of time must be inadequate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and others have raised a wide range of issues, and we need time to discuss them. For example, the Bill gives untrammelled powers to Ministers. It provides for the removal of
exceptions and modifications as may be prescribed by regulations
from the operation of clause 2. In other words, even though we will be forced to pass the Bill so hurriedly, Ministers will still be given untrammelled powers to make exceptions by means of delegated powers.
The Government claimed that they would take the legislative burden off the backs of the people, yet they treat this place with such contempt that the vast majority of their legislation emanates from subordinate instruments produced by Ministers. It is not on a trivial scale; they have produced more statutory instruments than any Government in the history of Parliament—3,500 last year.

Mr. Skinner: Never!

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend expresses surprise, as well he might. Many of those instruments exceed the power, size and extent of much primary legislation.
As the Leader of the House knows, the opportunities to debate subordinate legislation in the House are extremely limited. When this Bill is regrettably passed and hon. Members table prayers against the potentially huge raft of subordinate legislation produced by Ministers, will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that, while he holds office, time will be provided for all those prayers to be debated? Of course he will not give such a guarantee—he cannot, because he has competing demands on time in the House.
Some hon. Members—the new, trendy intake—want to shut up shop at 5 o'clock and go home for tea and crumpets. They want a four-day week. There simply will not be the time for scrutiny of the potentially huge amount of subordinate legislation that will affect people's daily lives. The law is the law, whether it is made through primary legislation, through a truncated version of primary legislation—such as we are being asked to approve this afternoon—or through the whole process of Second Reading, Committee stage, Report and Third Reading, the House of Lords and then back to the Commons.
The delegated powers used by Ministers have the same effect as primary legislation, and often include criminal sanctions. It is important that time is provided to debate the


powers that this Bill will hand to Ministers. People are sick and tired of the huge volume of legislation introduced by this Government and their predecessors. Clause 5 states:
The power to make regulations…shall be exercisable by statutory instrument".
There is no definition showing whether they will be made under the affirmative procedure—a resolution by the House to approve an instrument—or under the negative procedure. Apparently, that is to be left entirely to the Minister. That is not right. More instruments should be subject to the affirmative procedure, so that the House can have some sort of bite at the cherry. It is called democratic scrutiny.
The Government want to curtail the democratic processes for producing primary legislation. Then, within that curtailed process, they want to produce primary legislation that will give further powers to Ministers to produce subordinate legislation, which we are certain will not receive any scrutiny in the House.
The Bill provides for subordinate legislation to be produced to cover a wide range of instruments, including
Orders in Council, orders, rules, regulations, schemes, warrants, byelaws and other instruments made under any Act.
That is not a narrow range. It is true that "any Act" is defined to some degree in the Bill, but it is important that the House has an opportunity to curtail such wide powers.
I object to Ministers being given such huge powers, because of the way that the Whips carry out their business.—Conservative Whips and, I regret to say, Labour Whips reaching agreement to hand Ministers a huge range of subordinate powers.

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend illustrates the need for proper scrutiny. Does he agree that the motions, especially the ways and means motion that will be debated tomorrow —I hope we do not actually get as far as that—include the power to lay a tax at some future time, under any existing Act, for purposes unknown? To that extent, the motions are "open sesame"—not only for regulations, but possibly for taxation for specific purposes.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend clearly shows the need for more time. It is a relatively short Bill—indeed, the Maastricht Bill was also relatively short—but it is important. It is disgraceful that the Government should attempt to curtail proceedings on it. There is no need to do that. We have just been on holiday for 11 weeks. Hon. Members perform various tasks during that time and so are not completely free for those 11 weeks but, nevertheless, we have just had an 11-week recess. We will be here for a few days and on 4 November, so it is said, the House will go into recess again so that some Members of Parliament can recover from the shock of returning here after 11 weeks' holiday. Then we shall have another fortnight's holiday, coming back on 18 November. Why should the House have a fortnight's holiday at the convenience of the Government?
The Government want this place shut up to reduce scrutiny and challenge. Ministers make statements on television with no challenge other than a few soundbites from Opposition Members, who are in a subordinate position because the Minister is given prominence. Why should we not take two or three of those 10 weekdays? If the Leader of the House is in difficulty, I shall table a

resolution to curtail that fortnight's recess and, by a nod and a wink, he can tell his troops to slip off and let the Labour party approve the resolution.
It would not be popular among some hon. Members but, none the less, on the basis that we have plenty of time, I am prepared to do it. We can then have an additional two or three days in which to scrutinise the legislation without any difficulty.

Mr. Cash: Has it occurred to the hon. Gentleman that one reason why the Government are so anxious to get the legislation through as quickly as possible before 1 November may be that that is the date on which the Maastricht treaty has legal effect in the United Kingdom? The drafting of this Bill is based on the assumption, which I am glad some of us managed to prevent being realised, that the Government would get the Maastricht treaty through in a jiffy. For practical purposes, the Government must get this Bill on the statute book before 1 November. Therefore, although it would be a good idea to have more time, we would need to have that time between now and 1 November.

Mr. Cryer: I am not in favour of this Parliament being subordinated to the convenience of other members of the EC. If Parliament wishes to take extra time to scrutinise legislation, we are entitled to do so. I do not accept the notion that we should be subordinate in the headlong rush for integration into the Common Market.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, the Common Market has been a millstone around the neck of the British people. It has not provided jobs; it has reduced them. It has eroded our manufacturing base. We import from the Common Market nearly half the total number of cars registered on our roads each year. The Common Market exports much more to us than we export to it. Our economic relationship with the Common Market is dependent on its economic survival. It is diminishing —hence the stalling of our recovery. We face a deluge of legislation from the Common Market, much of it irrelevant.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman was doing well and keeping entirely in order, but he is now going beyond the scope of the two motions—far further than even the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) went.

Mr. Cryer: The implications of our relationship with the Common Market are relevant, because the treaty that the Bill implements links the EFTA countries with the Common Market. Therefore, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what you say is right, and I do not challenge it.
But, as the lawyers would say—although they are not here because they are in the courts—that demonstrates beyond peradventure the need for extra time to debate this comprehensive, complicated and extensive legislation. Your remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker, demonstrated the nature and range of the debate that would be in order if adequate time were given, and that shows how shoddily the House is being treated by the Government.
We are always in some difficulty on motions such as this. The first motion, which allows amendments to be tabled, was objected to because we wanted time to debate the motions and that was the only way to achieve that. But in the final analysis, if we are presented with the Government's organised majority, perhaps with some


absentions from pro-market fanatics on the Labour Benches and all the Liberals who vote for anything from the Common Market without any critical thought passing between their brain cells, we must decide whether we take advantage of the motion in order to table amendments.
Therefore, perhaps on balance we should allow the first motion to go through, but vote against the second motion, which compresses the amount of time to an unacceptable degree. It is in effect a guillotine. It is the sort of thing that the trendy tendency in the House wants for every bit of legislation.
People can take warning from this. Those who want to finish at 5 o'clock in the national legislature to get home for crumpets and tea, and who are prepared to accept a guillotine at the beginning of each piece of legislation, should note that this is what it is like—compressing time at the Government's convenience so that we cannot exercise proper scrutiny. I am opposed to that, and we should vote against the second motion.

Mr. Christopher Gill: I support and endorse the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who spoke bravely and well about the serious constitutional issue at stake here. I am sure that what he has said will be widely appreciated by the British people whom we represent. It is a great shame that not more of their representatives were in the Chamber to hear what my hon. Friend said.
Hon. Members will not be unaware of a certain election which took place in Tower Hamlets a few weeks ago. Before you rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, let me explain the significance of that for what we are discussing this evening.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that we are debating only motions Nos. 1 and 2, and he will have to be highly creative if he wishes to go down the track that he proposes and stay in order.

Mr. Gill: I shall do my best, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I hope that you will bear with me if I expand my argument. What I am saying in all seriousness is that history is repeating itself. An event in the history of this country 30 or 40 years ago on which the British people were not consulted had a profound effect on this country and, had they been consulted, they might have concluded quite differently.
You will remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in the 1950s and 1960s, anyone who spoke against mass immigration to this island was pilloried and vilified—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are debating motions Nos. 1 and 2 on the European Economic Area Bill, not mass immigration or a part of London. Every other hon. Member who has spoken has stayed in order, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to stick to the two motions.

Mr. Gill: The debate has been wide-ranging, but had you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, allowed me to complete my next sentence, you would have understood the drift of my argument. Had the British people been allowed a referendum in the 1950s or 1960s on that important issue, we might have avoided one of the great difficulties that we are now experiencing.
There is a real danger that history will repeat itself, and that what we do in the Chamber today, carelessly, will, in 30 or 40 years' time, be regarded by the British people as a serious and fundamental dereliction of duty.
Therefore, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East and others are right to say that we should have more time to debate these matters because they deal with the fundamentals of our constitution. It is only right and proper that the argument in this place should be extensive. It is regrettable that that argument has not been allowed to include the British people. Many of us believe that they should have been consulted through a referendum, in the same way as they should have been consulted on the other important issue many years ago.
One of the things that determined me to obtain a place in this House was that, throughout my adult life, I have seen this Parliament backing away from tough decisions. I have seen my country drifting rather than facing up to reality. I believe also that, on these important fundamental constitutional issues, the people should be consulted. At the end of the day, the people will be the all-time losers as a result of our failure to represent their interests adequately and well.

6 pm

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I wish to refer to motion No. 2. The first motion causes me no concern. It specifies, rightly, the tabling of new clauses and schedules. However, motion No. 2 should be rejected by the House.
The House has been denied a detailed scrutiny of the treaty. I think that I am right in saying that the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs has not reported to the House on the treaty. I am a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation, and I can inform the House that that Committee's terms of reference have prevented it from examining the treaty. If the Bill were deliberated in a sensible way, it would allow us to voice some concerns that we have about the treaty. I am interested particularly in parts 2, 3 and 7 of the treaty.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the House is interested in all parts of the treaty. However, this afternoon we are concerned only with the two motions. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would address his remarks to those motions.

Dr. Godman: If the second motion is passed, it will deny us the opportunity to voice our reservations. I have already tabled a reasoned amendment to the Bill. If the Leader of the House were to apply Standing Order No. 91 to the Bill—the setting up of a Special Standing Committee—it would allow for the sort of scrutiny that hon. Members have demanded.
If I am in order, I should like to quote from Standing Order No. 91:
A special standing committee to which a bill has been committed shall have power, during a period not exceeding 28 days …from the committal of the bill, to send for persons, papers and records, and, for this purpose, to hold up to four morning sittings of not more than three hours each.
That is what the Bill needs. In those circumstances, if needs be, the Foreign Secretary could be called to give evidence about the treaty and its implications for many communities in the United Kingdom.
The Standing Order also says that oral evidence can be given and


shall be printed in the Official Report of the Committees' debates together with such written evidence as the Committee may order to be so printed.
If that procedure were to be followed, the Bill would be given the scrutiny that it needs. It would allow us reasonable time to table amendments and new clauses to the Bill if we thought fit. The proceedings need not be too lengthy, but a Special Standing Committee would meet some of the reservations that have been expressed.

Mr. Roger Knapman: There seems to be some familiar voices and faces in this debate. I wonder whether one day is adequate for all the issues being raised. I know that, during consideration of the Single European Act, four or five amendments were grouped together. During consideration of the Maastricht treaty, we changed gear and up to 30 or 40 were grouped together. Now, we have changed gear again and 550 pages have to be dealt with in one day.
We spent 27 or 28 days debating the Maastricht treaty because we thought that it was wholly wrong. However, I wonder whether it is slightly perverse that we should have spent 27 or 28 days debating the Maastricht treaty when the House had no power to alter a semi-colon, colon or even a comma, and then to spend just one day on a 550-page measure when we do have some power to look at the amendments.
If my wife wants to go shopping, she may come back to me and say that there may be a
small amount of additional expenditure as a result".
However, I wonder whether that is the type of phraseology that we need for this type of Bill, when we are talking about the application for income support by EFTA nationals, of whom there are many millions who can, presumably, make claims. It seems to include Switzerland, which many of us thought had turned down the entire notion, no doubt wisely.
We must look also at the movement of people and our dependencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) has mentioned Gibraltar. Also, Bermuda is considering whether it wishes to remain in the Commonwealth. We are not necessarily treating them badly, but I understand that all the citizens of the French dependencies can enter this country freely.
We will end up with the extraordinary situation—I wonder whether my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be able to confirm this—in which the citizens of British Guyana will not be able to enter this country, while as EC citizens people from French Guyana will be able to do so.
Those are just some of the major items that we will have to debate in one day. Is that right and reasonable?

Mr. Newton: Despite the numerous references to the length of the recess, I have to say, I hope rather wryly, that during the past two hours it has seemed as if we have never been away. Although not without interest, there was a sense of déjà vu. I remind the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) that I made it clear that the fact that there had been an understanding in what are conventionally called the "usual channels" was not being used as a matter of argument. I re-emphasise that to my hon. Friend the

Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and others. It is simply part of the background that the House should understand.
The hon. Member for Newham, South referred to the use of the word "proceedings" in my statement before the recess. I am sorry if that misled him. It is perfectly conventional terminology, and is usually taken to mean that the debate is not expected to be confined to Second Reading. I shall consider on future occasions whether there is any way in which I can make that clearer.

Mr. Spearing: I thank the Leader of the House for that remark. It would be helpful to say that "further stages" may also be taken. Despite the right hon. Gentleman's comment about déjà vu, that is not quite the same. Does he agree that democracy has not only to be done but must be seen to be done? In respect of the time for this Bill, it might have been better to do it in a different way.

Mr. Newton: If I may, I shall deal with that point in what will not be an extensive speech. What I have just said is without commitment, but I assure the hon. Gentleman, who follows these matters closely, that I did not intend to mislead him by the wording of the statement that was made before the summer recess.
I say to a number of hon. Members who have spoken, including the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and my hon. Friends the Members for Southend, East, for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) and for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), that the second motion simply provides for the Ways and Means resolution to be taken after the money resolution and Second Reading. Sometimes there is a difference, but normally that is precisely when money resolutions and Ways and Means resolutions are taken.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East maintained that this is a further demonstration that democracy is dying, yet gave a convincing demonstration that it certainly is not. He has been able to spend much time looking at points that he thinks should be raised under this Bill.
Were I to respond to many of the other matters about which we heard from the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Bradford, South, they would, although they were in order, take me into a wide-ranging defence of our current economic arrangements with and beyond the Community. I say, however, to the hon. Member for Bolsover, who comes from Derbyshire and who adverted to jobs in Britain, that I do not believe for one moment that Toyota, which is in Derbyshire, would have located in Britain if we were not a member of the European Economic Community.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), although he may not have meant it in this way, used the phrases "short notice" and "short time". I shall deal with "short time" in a moment. The Bill was ordered to be printed in the Commons on 25 November 1992, so it can hardly be said that there has not been time to study it. Equally, I gave notice of the proceedings intended for tomorrow before the summer recess. There can rarely have been an occasion when the House has had more time to study a matter or to consider the proceedings that we expect to have tomorrow.
Many hon. Members, most notably the hon. Member for Bradford, South, spoke of the motions as though they constituted guillotine or timetable motions. All they allow is for amendments to be tabled before Second Reading and


for the Money and Ways and Means resolutions to be taken immediately after Second Reading. There is no timetable motion before the House. These are sensible procedural motions to enable the House to proceed from Second Reading to detailed discussion, and I hope that the House will now pass them.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, in respect of the European Economic Area Bill [Lords], notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.

Motion made and Question put,
That, if the European Economic Area Bill [Lords] be committed to a Committee of the whole House, further proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed and that, as soon as the proceedings on any Resolutions come to by the House on the European Economic Area Bill [Lords] [Money] and [Ways and Means] have been concluded, this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.—[Mr. Newton.]

The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 35.

Division No. 365]
[6.14 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Conway, Derek


Aitken, Jonathan
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Alexander, Richard
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Couchman, James


Amess, David
Cran, James


Ancram, Michael
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Arbuthnot, James
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Ashby, David
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Atkins, Robert
Day, Stephen


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Devlin, Tim


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Dicks, Terry


Baldry, Tony
Dorrell, Stephen


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dover, Den


Bates, Michael
Duncan, Alan


Batiste, Spencer
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bellingham, Henry
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bendall, Vivian
Eggar, Tim


Beresford, Sir Paul
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Booth, Hartley
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Boswell, Tim
Evennett, David


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Faber, David


Bowis, John
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brandreth, Gyles
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Brazier, Julian
Fishburn, Dudley


Bright, Graham
Forman, Nigel


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Forth, Eric


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Burns, Simon
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Burt, Alistair
French, Douglas


Butcher, John
Fry, Peter


Butler, Peter
Gale, Roger


Butterfill, John
Gallie, Phil


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gardiner, Sir George


Carrington, Matthew
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Carttiss, Michael
Garnier, Edward


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gill, Christopher


Churchill, Mr
Gillan, Cheryl


Clappison, James
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Coe, Sebastian



Colvin, Michael
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Congdon, David
Greenway, John (Ryedale)





Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Grylls, Sir Michael
Moss, Malcolm


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Nelson, Anthony


Hague, William
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hanley, Jeremy
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hannam, Sir John
Norris, Steve


Hargreaves, Andrew
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Harris, David
Oppenheim, Phillip


Haselhurst, Alan
Ottaway, Richard


Hawkins, Nick
Page, Richard


Hawksley, Warren
Paice, James


Hayes, Jerry
Patnick, Irvine


Heald, Oliver
Patten, Rt Hon John


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hendry, Charles
Pawsey, James


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Pickles, Eric


Hicks, Robert
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Horam, John
Powell, William (Corby)


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Rathbone, Tim


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Richards, Rod


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Riddick, Graham


Hunter, Andrew
Robathan, Andrew


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jenkin, Bernard
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Key, Robert
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kilfedder, Sir James
Sackville, Tom


King, Rt Hon Tom
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Kirkhope, Timothy
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knox, Sir David
Shersby, Michael


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Sims, Roger


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Legg, Barry
Soames, Nicholas


Leigh, Edward
Speed, Sir Keith


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lidington, David
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lightbown, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spink, Dr Robert


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spring, Richard


Lord, Michael
Sproat, Iain


Luff, Peter
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stephen, Michael


MacKay, Andrew
Stern, Michael


Maclean, David
Stewart, Allan


McLoughlin, Patrick
Streeter, Gary


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sumberg, David


Madel, David
Sweeney, Walter


Maitland, Lady Olga
Sykes, John


Malone, Gerald
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mans, Keith
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marland, Paul
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Marlow, Tony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thomason, Roy


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mates, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Thurnham, Peter


Merchant, Piers
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Milligan, Stephen
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Mills, Iain
Tracey, Richard


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Trend, Michael


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Trotter, Neville


Moate, Sir Roger
Twinn, Dr Ian






Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Willetts, David


Walden, George
Wilshire, David


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Waller, Gary
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Ward, John
Wolfson, Mark


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Yeo, Tim


Waterson, Nigel
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Watts, John



Whitney, Ray
Tellers for the Ayes:


Whittingdale, John
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Widdecombe, Ann
Mr. Timothy Wood.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
McAllion, John


Ashton, Joe
Madden, Max


Barnes, Harry
Mahon, Alice


Bayley, Hugh
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Beggs, Roy
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Bennett, Andrew F.
Mullin, Chris


Boyce, Jimmy
Parry, Robert


Chisholm, Malcolm
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Simpson, Alan


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Etherington, Bill
Spearing, Nigel


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Winnick, David


Gordon, Mildred
Wise, Audrey


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)



Hardy, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Leighton, Ron
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Livingstone, Ken
Mr. Dennis Skinner.


Loyden, Eddie

Question accordingly agreed to.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Since the opening of the office building at No. 1 Parliament street, it has been the custom during Divisions for the police to obey the Sessional Order and allow hon. Members free access to this building. That service was not provided during the latest Division, and I understand from a police officer at the carriage gates that the police had been instructed no longer to provide it.
I wish to register a strong protest. If there is no way of providing such a service, I suggest that at least three minutes should be added to the time available for Divisions, so that hon. Members are able to get here. I do not expect you to be able to respond to my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I should be grateful if the House authorities could consider it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I shall bring the matter to the attention of Madam Speaker.

National Lottery Etc. Bill

Lords amendments considered

Clause 7

LICENCES UNDER SECTIONS 5 AND 6: FURTHER PROVISIONS

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 3, line 31, at end insert—
("( ) to refer matters to the Director General for approval;
( ) to ensure that suchy requirements as the Director General may from time to time determine or approve are complied with;")

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Ian Sproat): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Mr. Sproat: The amendments allow for certain additional provisions to be included in the licence to ensure that the lottery is operated fairly and efficiently. The Bill, as originally drafted, already included a wide range of powers for the director general of the lottery to control the operator and the new provisions merely complete the regulatory picture.
Amendment No. 1 will enable the director general to ask the operator to prepare codes of practice for certain elements of the lottery, in particular to cover advertising and customer relations. The operator will, therefore, be asked, within these areas, to establish his own regime according to which he intends to operate for the benefit of the playing public. Codes will have to be approved by the director general, who will then monitor the operators' performance against their requirements. If there were breaches of the codes, it would be open to the director general to introduce new licence conditions covering appropriate matters.
The requirement to develop codes of practice will be included in the draft invitation to apply for the licence which the director general will issue shortly after he is appointed, following Royal Assent. Once the draft document has been considered, the final invitation to apply will be issued, enabling him to license an operator by, we hope, next spring.
As part of the tendering process, applicants will be asked to outline their codes of practice and explain how they see them operating in practice. When the successful applicant has been selected, the director general will agree codes with him before the lottery is finally up and running.
Despite the fact that we could not complete the Bill's parliamentary process before the summer recess, we still hope that the first draw might be held towards the end of 1994 or in early 1995, with money flowing to the distribution bodies in the following month. Of course, the distribution bodies will need to prepare themselves for handling applications some time before that.
6.30 pm
The timetable is especially tight for the new bodies to be established under the Bill and particularly for the Millennium Commission, which will be handling major projects due for completion in time for the year 2000. In order to allow work on establishing the commission to get


ahead quickly after Royal Assent, my Department intends to bring forward a supplementary estimate this autumn for £150,000 for the Millennium Commission. That expenditure during the current financial year was not anticipated in the earlier stages of the Bill, so I wanted to put it on the record for the House now.
Amendment No. 2 would allow the director general to publish information relating to the performance of the operator. That would be in addition to the annual report that the operator must produce and would make him even more accountable to the House and to the general public.
The remaining amendments deal with the situation that will arise when, for whatever reason, one licence ends and another begins. They would require the licensee to take certain actions in connection with the end of his period of holding the licence so that the new licence holder could operate the lottery effectively with as little disruption as possible.
Some examples of the kind of action that might be required may be helpful. For example, the director general might have to ensure the transfer of rights over the national lottery logo or identity. The identity of the national lottery must, of course, be able to continue even if the operator's licence is transferred to another body. Secondly, the director general might also require the former operator to provide information on accounting matters connected with the running of the lottery. Finally, the outgoing operator might still have information relating to his period as licence holder that the director general needed for completing unfinished games, reissuing the licence or reporting on the running of the lottery in a particular period. Clearly it is important that the director general should be able to gain access to such information and that the licensee should be fully accountable to the publicly appointed regulator for his actions even after the licence has expired.
I emphasise that it will not be possible to include variations in the licence relating to the transfer of property or rights without the prior consent of the operator. The draft licence sent out with the invitation to apply will make those conditions clear so that all those who bid for the licence will know of their obligations before they make their bid.
It is important that a certain degree of continuity be maintained in the event of a change in the operator. The amendments are needed to ensure the smooth operation and continuation of the lottery and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Tom Pendry: The Opposition recognise that the amendments are, in the main, sensible and that amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are technical. We also welcome the news that supplementary estimates will be brought forward to help the Millennium Commission to get on with its work.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 deserve some comment. The Government have said that amendment No. 1 would make it possible for the director general of Oflot to place additional requirements on the lottery operator, such as a requirement to adhere to a code of conduct on advertising. The amendment also offers the possibility of developing other codes of conduct if necessary. We welcome that addition to the Bill.
A code of conduct for advertisting is important. Those who took part in previous debates will recall that concern was expressed about the possible nature of the advertising.

For example, it is plain that in some lottery advertising campaigns in the United States marketing material is targeted on low-income groups. Concern has also been expressed about the possible impact of careless lottery advertising on the incomes of charities. The amendment is welcome because if offers an opportunity for those concerns to be tackled, at least partially, through a condition in the licence that would require the lottery operator to adhere to a code of conduct on advertising prepared by the director general of Oflot.
I believe—perhaps the Minister will confirm this—that the Government intend that if the need arose the code of practice could cover the use of charities in lottery advertising. We believe that it is important that it should do so. It appears inevitable to us that "good causes" will be a secondary feature of lottery promotion; and that could affect charities' income and give rise to concern about how images of charitable work are presented in the lottery's promotional material.
Amendment No. 2 provides that the director general may publish some of the information that the licence specifies that he may require from the lottery operator. That, too, is welcome because it will enable the director general to obtain from the lottery operator for publication information that could help to assess the social effects of the lottery. We sincerely hope that that is one way in which the information will be used; the Minister may wish to comment on that idea.
Research from the United States shows that lottery operators have a tendency to concentrate lottery terminals in the poorer districts of cities. The Government said in the House of Lords that the director general would require the lottery operator to provide information about the number and location of ticket sale terminals across the country. We believe that that information should be published. Indeed, the Government should go further. The director general could be required to include in his annual report a statement about the social impact of the national lottery. That would probably mean requiring the operator to make available to the director general for publication all its market research, including information about patterns of purchase of tickets according to social class, geographical area and so on. That could form one element of the director general's statement about the social impact of the lottery. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to that suggestion.
In another place the Government also gave an undertaking to publish before the Bill left Parliament a document giving information about what would be in the licence, including details of the headings. They had better hurry up. So far as we are aware that document has not been published. In fairness I must say that that is probably because the regulatory adviser, who will become the director general of Oflot when the Bill is enacted, was appointed only a couple of weeks ago. However, it is a shame that the document will not be made public before the Bill leaves Parliament. I hope that the Minister will comment on that matter, too.
Subject to those provisos, and taking the group of amendments as a whole, we support it as a positive move in the right direction.

Mr. Tim Renton: First, I declare an interest as chairman and shareholder of a new company, Interactive Telephone Services, in Southampton. Our automatic call-handling facilities may well be used by the


winning consortium that will operate the lottery, so it is only fair to mention that fact to the House, although my interest is of course declared in the Register of Members' Interests.
My purpose in speaking in the debate is not, however, to advertise my new company, but, as someone who has consistently and eagerly supported the cause of the national lottery over the past three years, to say how extremely pleased I am that its gestation period has nearly come to an end. I hope that we shall soon see a thriving baby alive and kicking. I am especially pleased about the Millennium Commission, and the commitment of 20 per cent. of resources after expenses to projects commemorating the end of this millennium and the start of the next, because that concept originated from my desk two years ago when I was the last Minister at the Office of Arts and Libraries. I therefore wholly support the idea, and believe that over the next six or seven years we shall have an exciting time —together, I hope, with communities throughout the country—making suggestions to the Millennium Commission about how the money could be spent in a manner that will make our children and grandchildren proud and pleased, and by which they will remember us in years to come. That said, I have to say to my hon. Friend the Minister that I am a little dismayed, particularly by the language in Lords amendment No. 1, which states in a general manner that matters should be referred
to the Director General for approval ;".
If I am correct, that would come at the end of the lines in the Bill which state that the director general's consent must already be obtained by the operator before he does
anything specified, or of a description specified, in the licence;".
I wonder whether the Minister would have inserted the amendment if the House of Lords had not insisted on his doing so. He has told us that the matters to be referred are limited in scope, but the terminology seems all-embracing. The Bill's provisions afforded enough protection when it left this House and went to another place. We do not need to tie down still further the hands and feet of the operator, but the words
refer matters to the Director General for approval
could be interpreted as doing so. I hope, therefore, that when the Minister winds up this short debate he will reassure the House that it was not the intention to provide a further bureaucratic stranglehold on the operator.
If the lottery is to succeed, it is essential that a vast hierarchy should not be created around the director general of the national lottery, which would generate further expense and reduce the amount of money available for distribution to the five good causes—small charities, arts, sport, heritage and the millennium fund. It would be a tragedy if the idea of a national lottery, which has existed for so long, were not to succeed. I am told that the idea first came before the Treasury about 30 years ago when Robert Armstrong, now the noble Lord Armstrong, was a very junior civil servant in the Treasury. If the national lottery is now to be created, it is essential that there is not a huge hierarchy of civil servants and that excessive profits do not go to the operator, but a lot of money goes to the five good causes.
The reason for my enthusiasm for the lottery when I was Minister at the Office of Arts and Libraries was that it was the only way in which I could envisage bringing a lot of new money into the arts, heritage and sport. There was no

other likely avenue available to achieve that. Let us now ensure that that concept is not dissipated by excessive bureaucracy in the administering of the lottery. Administrative expenses should never exceed more than 5 per cent. of the gross total. If there is to be a gross revenue of £2 billion from the lottery as the first annual figure, ideally 50 per cent. of that—£1 billion—after prizes, the operators' profits, taxes and administration have been accounted for, will be available for the good causes. There should be £200 million for each of the five good causes out of the initial turnover of £2 billion. That should remain the target over the months ahead as the idea is developed and the first national lottery is introduced before the end of 1994.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) mentioned points of sale. I have written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage once or twice to emphasise the argument that I hope that points of sale will be mainly in small corner shops such as tobacconists and newsagents, not concentrated in the supermarkets. I think that all hon. Members want the lottery not only to help the small corner shop to survive, but to provide it with another useful source of revenue by attracting more customers. Therefore, if the points of sale and the vending machines—whatever technology is used—were concentrated in the big supermarkets, it would be a tragedy. We would be throwing away an opportunity to bring new life back to a sector of this country's retailing industry which has suffered in recent years and which we would all like to help.
I agree with the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde. It would not be a bad idea if the director general's report were to contain an analysis of points of sale and of the social effects of the lottery. That is an acceptable idea, but I have a twist to that argument. I very much hope that points of sale will be concentrated in the small corner shop.

Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: The amendment relates to clause 7, which deals with the issue of the licence for the promotion of the lottery. When the Minister replies, will he enlighten us on some small but important points? Will matters to be referred back to the director general include details on the companies involved in some of the consortia? That subject is of great public interest and has been heavily covered in newspapers and on television in recent weeks.
I refer specifically to three of the consortia which are said to be interested in the lottery franchise. The consortia have dealt with two American companies, one of which is Automated Wagering International, which is currently suspended for its activities in Victoria. I understand that it is involved in the bid of the Great British Lottery Company and is also assisting the Rank Organisation in a bid for the lottery franchise. G-Tech, which is involved in the Camelot consortium, has been under investigation for some time in Maryland in America. It was also under investigation in New York and its lobbyists were prosecuted in California in connection with anti-lottery legislation in that state.
It is of great concern that companies that are to be involved in the lottery should be beyond doubt. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that the companies'


involvement in the consortia will be closely examined as it is said that the annual turnover could be as much as £4 billion.

Dr. Joe Hendron: I wish to refer to amendment No. 10—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. We have not reached that amendment, although I am sure that many people wish we had.

Mr. Sproat: I take your subtle hint, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I thank the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) for his general welcome for what we have introduced in the amendments. He raised the extremely important issue of controls on advertising and their place in the draft licence. We are concerned that the lottery should not be promoted in unsuitable markets. The licence issued to the lottery operator will oblige him to draw up a code of practice covering the way in which the lottery is to be advertised. That code will go into great detail—

Mr. Robin Corbett: Will the code include promotions?

Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. The code will include promotions and public relations.
The code will ensure that the lottery cannot focus advertisements on those under the age of 16. It must also stipulate that advertising should not link the lottery with the sale of alcohol or drugs, or with betting and gaming.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde made an interesting point about charities and the nature of advertising as it might affect them. The code of practice could cover the use of charities. It will be made clear to operators that if they wish to use the image of any beneficiary, including a charity, they cannot do so without that organisation's permission. I hope that that will set to rest any worries which the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde might have.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether it would be possible to include in the annual report produced by the operator some sort of social impact. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) also raised that issue. It is an interesting idea and I will draw it to the attention of the director general designate, who can discuss it with the operator when the operator is finally chosen. I certainly see no reason why that should not be done.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde also asked whether it would be possible to see the draft licence, and when. It is certainly extremely important that the public and the House should know what is in the licence. When it is issued—shortly, I hope—I will ensure that a copy is laid in the Library of the House for all to see.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: The Minister is giving us rather bland assurances, but the public want to know more about the nitty-gritty. For instance, will people who win the prize be able to claim it anonymously? Will those who operate outlets have to be insured; and if they are refused insurance, what redress will they have? What will happen if someone walks into a greengrocer's shop and sticks up the manager and takes all the funds? These are the practical difficulties, but the Minister is fobbing them off and saying that they are the responsibility of the director general. Apart from during one or two sessions of

cross-examining the Minister, the Select Committee has not had a chance to probe this matter either. Will we have another chance to debate these matters in the House?

Mr. Sproat: These matters, important as they are, may arise on another amendment when we will discuss the revocation of licences, improper behaviour and so on. The hon. Gentleman says that I am laying an awful lot at the door of the director general, but that is what the House decided to do when it passed the Bill earlier this year. Of course, these matters will be taken seriously by the director general and I am not fobbing off my responsibilities on to him. It is just that the House has decided to give him certain powers.
It is entirely up to the Opposition whether we hold further debates and if the House considers that we need them, we can have them. This is certainly an important subject; we are moving into a new area and no doubt we will want to refine many things at a later stage.

Mr. Ashton: Would it then be in order for hon. Members to table questions in the House on the workings of the national lottery? Will the Minister answer them, or will he say that they are not a matter for him and his Department?

Mr. Sproat: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the answer is that if the Table Office accepts the questions I will be glad to answer them. I will be glad to answer as many questions as I possibly can, but the rules of the House will decide that, not me.
I welcome the support for the millennium fund offered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex. We all pay tribute to his tremendous contribution to the national lottery. He was rather worried that various aspects of the code of practice would have to be referred back to the director general and might thus be a cause of more bureaucracy. I agree wholeheartedly with him about the need to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy. In order to make sure that the code of practice is as realistic as possible, the director general, in his invitation to apply, will issue a draft licence which will give draft examples of what we want in the code of practice. He will then suggest that the applicant state what he would like in the code and the matter will then be the subject of discussions between them. In this way the code of practice will be practical and realistic and will fit in with the plans of the operator as well as meeting the needs of the director general and the public. I can assure my right hon. Friend that we share his wish that no money be wasted on bureaucracy which could go to good causes.
My right hon. Friend also made the important point that points of sale could be in small shops, rural post offices and so on. That will be a matter for the applicants to suggest as part of their marketing plans, which they will put to the director general, but I have no doubt that the latter has heard what my right hon. Friend had to say and will take it into account.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) asked a good question about the fitness of operators to take part in various consortia. We take that extremely seriously and I can assure him that the director general will make it his first priority to see that no one who has exhibited criminality or any other kind of unfitness to operate is allowed to be part of a consortium. He will scrutinise people's fitness closely. He has the power to ask for papers, documents and information in any other form that he may


need to assure himself that the people asking to run the lottery are fit and proper persons to do so. I give the hon. Gentleman that unqualified assurance.
With those few words, I rest my case.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

After Clause 15

Lords amendment: No. 6, after clause 15, to insert the following new clause—

False representations as to the National Lottery

(".— (1) If a person advertising, or offering the opportunity to participate in, a lottery, competition or game of another description gives, by whatever means, a false indication that it is a lottery forming part of, or is otherwise connected with, the National Lottery, he shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, to a fine or to both.")

Mr. Sproat: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The national lottery will, we hope, be a great success, but that may lead to the temptation for unscrupulous competition organisers to benefit from that success by trying to mislead consumers to the effect that a lottery or competition that they run forms part of the national lottery. This amendment, therefore, will make it an offence to make a false claim that a competition or lottery forms part of the national lottery.
Although a person who gives a false indication that his lottery is part of the national lottery would probably also be committing an offence under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, we cannot be certain that the Act would cover the position for all eventualities. That Act is confined to false statements made in the course of a trade or business; not all lotteries may fall within that description—for example, a society lottery. We would not of course expect the promotion of any society or local lottery to make false claims that it formed part of the national lottery, but we must ensure that such false claims constitute a criminal offence.
There will of course be other safeguards for the consumer to ensure that any player who buys a ticket for the national lottery can be certain that it forms part of the national lottery, not something else that purports to. Three important conditions will be included in the licence to help customers know exactly where they stand.
First, the director general will use the licence to ensure that the operator uses the lottery logo or other signs relating to it in specified places, circumstances and ways. Secondly, the licence and codes of practice will be able to control how the lottery is advertised and ensure that customers are quite clear that the ticket or chance they are purchasing is part of the national lottery and not of any other game. Finally, the operator will have to make sure that the odds against winning on the lottery, including against winning the jackpot, are available to all customers at the point of sale.
Hon. Members will no doubt recall that we had originally intended to issue regulations under clause 12 to control these aspects of the lottery, but after further thought we have decided that incorporating these matters in the

licence would provide a more effective, less bureaucratic approach. Certainly, we will not hesitate to use our regulation-making powers should the licence fail to control these aspects of the lottery operation to our satisfaction.
This amendment seeks to prevent the lottery from being undermined by deception and fraud and hence to protect both the general public and the national lottery itself. I hope that the House will support me in adding this important customer protection measure to the statute book.

7 pm

Mr. Pendry: The Opposition are a bit wary of the amendment, as it looks as though the Government have listened to us during the passage of the Bill. They are in danger of being called the "listening party", at least as far as this evening is concerned, with one obvious exception to which we shall come later.
On behalf of the Opposition, I accept the need for the new clause to ensure that there are proper and adequate safeguards for the consumer who plays the national lottery. The customer must be sure that he is playing the genuine national lottery game and not something pretending to be so. Safeguards, as outlined by the Minister, are right and proper. I agree with him also that the national lottery needs to be protected from unscrupulous competitions so that it can be successful. With those words, we accept the amendment.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Would a national daily paper that ran a lottery and called it a national lottery cause confusion? What about the football pools? What is the answer? A national newspaper could quite genuinely say that its lottery is national because it is circulated throughout the United Kingdom. How does one distinguish between lotteries? Perhaps the Minister will explain.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am delighted that the Government have taken this step, through the House of Lords, as it underlines a vital point about the lottery; not only must it be squeaky clean, but it must be seen to be so by the public who invest in it. If it is made absolutely clear, by amendments such as this, that there is no question that the authorities will be watching the way in which the lottery structure operates, the point will be strongly made.
The success of the lottery will depend on people spending money on it and buying their chances. Less money will go to the arts, sport, charities, millennium fund or to heritage unless a vast sum of money goes in to the lottery. I originally envisaged something like £3 billion altogether. If we are to have such advantage, the confidence of the people is all important. If that confidence should ever drain away, the whole thing will end as a pitiful disaster and will be contrary to all our wishes and hopes. That kind of measure must be warmly welcomed by us all.

Mr. Sproat: I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) for his welcome, for which I am most grateful, and also thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), to whom the whole House would wish to pay tribute for his contribution to the whole concept of the lottery. He has worked hard and successfully in that matter.
The right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) raised an important point about newspapers trying to pass off something of their own as a national lottery. That would not be allowed. They would be prevented from doing that. Any lottery or other competition that tried to do the same


would be caught by what we propose in the amendment. I can give him the assurance that what he fears would not happen.

Mr. Orme: I must press the Minister on that point. If a national newspaper said that it was running a national lottery, it would be ruled out of order. Is that what the Minister is saying?

Mr. Sproat: Yes, is the short answer, but at the end of the day it would be down to the courts to decide. The right hon. Gentleman should have no fear. That is what we intend in the amendment and I am sure that that will happen.

Mr. Kilfoyle: I wonder whether the Minister can clear up that point. Is he saying that, for example, the Daily Mail, which is circulated nationally, cannot promote a lottery? Surely it would be an offence if it gave the impression that the lottery that it promotes is part of the national lottery. There is a big difference in that.

Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman is right. That is what I sought to make clear. I understood the right hon. Member for Salford, East to say that, if a newspaper called something a national lottery—

Mr. Orme: indicated assent.

Mr. Sproat: I see that he is nodding his head—it would be a passing off. That would be caught by the provisions of the Bill. I am sorry if I did not make that clear to the hon. Gentleman, but that was what I was seeking to say.

Mr. Ashton: I do not wish to waste time, but what would happen if the Daily Mail offered a prize of £100-worth of lottery tickets in the national lottery? That, presumably, would be legal. It might say, "You can pick your own numbers. You can have 8, 10 and 4 on the 3; or 7, 6, 4 and 9 on the 4; or 7 consecutive, and we will run it through the machine, to the value of £100." Would that be legal?

Mr. Sproat: As far as I know, that would be legal, but the hon. Gentleman's point is slightly different. The point that I understood the right hon. Member for Salford, East to be making was whether it would be right to call it a national lottery—

Mr. Orme: indicated assent.

Mr. Sproat: —and, as it were, passing it off as part of the national lottery. That would not be allowed. What the hon. Gentleman has now said would, as far as I know, be allowed because it would not be passing off what the Daily Mail or any other newspaper said as part of the national lottery; it would simply be offering prizes An a competition of its own.

Mr. Ashton: If we come to that, and I am glad that the Minister gave that reply, we have to take up the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) about its being squeaky clean. Obviously, the lottery must be totally squeaky clean. When people put their money on it, I understand that they will have to put it into a computerised box at the outlet and are guaranteed that, within seconds, if they are going for the big jackpot prize that will be drawn tonight at 8 o'clock, their entry will be recorded somewhere on a computerised line and they will be guaranteed a pay-out.
People will have no such guarantee if the Daily Mail gets the numbers wrong or forgets to feed them in, or comes back and says, "Sorry, but we are changing our mind."
I regret to say that the Minister has not thought through the consequences of much of what he is deciding. He can pass it all on to the director general, but the House is in the process of passing something that is bigger than British Airways. If we look at what we were told in Committee, the cash turnover involved is bigger than British Coal at its height, yet every time that we asked a probing question in Committee we were told, "We shall talk about that later. There will be a director general, we shall have a report and an investigation." All sorts of things were promised, but there have been no definite answers.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) and myself went with the Select Committee on National Heritage to Washington and New York and visited the headquarters there, we found many anomalies that the Department has not considered.

Mr. Sproat: Just to wrap it up, there may be anomalies that we have not considered so far, but I hope not. Details of the kind raised by the hon. Gentleman will be matters for the director general when he comes to decide who should be the operator when he monitors the performance.
As I may mention later, if I catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, there will be provision for the director general to publish his opinions of the performance of the operator in addition to any report that the operator makes. All that will be dealt with in that way, quite publicly.

Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendment: No. 7, to insert the following new clause—

Extension of powers of Horserace Totalisator Board

(".—(1) The Horserace Totalisator Board may hold a licence under section 5 or 6.
(2) The Horserace Totalisator Board may hold an interst in a body corporate the only or principal object of which is the holding of a licence under section or 5 or 6.
(3) In subsection (2) the reference to holding an interest in a body corporate is to holding, or being beneficially entitled to, shares in that body or to possessing voting power in that body.")

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
As most hon. Members know, the Tote is keen to take part in a national lottery, but, as the law stands, it is prevented from doing so. The amendment, which was introduced by Lord Wyatt in another place, will enable the Tote to hold a licence to run the national lottery, or promote lotteries as part of the national lottery. The amendment is purely permissive. It simply places the Tote on exactly the same footing as any operator in the betting industry.
The Tote has a good case to be a contender, it being well equipped with up-to-date technology. I believe that it would be wrong if it was to be prevented from applying because we were not prepared to take this opportunity to amend the law to enable it to make the bid.

Mr. Pendry: We also agree with the amendment, for good reasons. Not only does the Horserace Totalisator Board have a proven track record of efficiency, but the profits to the Tote are vital to the horse racing industry. Any decline in its profit margin would have a devastating effect on the industry at a time when it is facing enormous


challenges. Racecourse attendances were down last year by 3·5 per cent. and courses are finding the economic climate difficult to live with.
Despite all those problems, the Tote is alive and well, but it needs a helping hand from the Government and the amendment helps both the industry and the efficiency of the Tote. Without an operating licence for the Tote, horse racing would be badly affected, as it was in France when such a system was introduced. The PMU, the tote betting organisation for horse racing, took a dramatic nose dive —about 10 per cent. of its takings—and it took years to recover.
The Tote is run effectively and efficiently and it would seem an appropriate body to hold a licence under the terms set out in the Bill. The Tote's fast terminal, which is currently on stream, would be of enormous benefit for a smooth operation.
I move on to a subject already dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle). While most people consider the Tote to be a fit and proper body to have an operating licence, would the Minister care to comment on the criteria for a potential operator? The words "fit and proper" were raised in the Committee proceedings, and probed there by my hon. Friend, and in another place. Since that time, and until just a few moments ago, there was a deafening silence from Ministers.
I hope that, when he responds to the debate, the Minister will come clean and tell us that the honesty and integrity of those holding the licence will be necessary to ensure the public's perception of the probity of the lottery. It would not be good enough for the Secretary of State or the Minister merely to trot out the stock phrase, "It will be a matter for the director general to determine." There must be clear ministerial guidelines on a matter of such importance. There is a fear that, as they have failed to give such guidelines, the Government will be lax in the conditions that they attach to the successful bidder to operate the lottery.
As we all know, the lottery will be a multi-billion pound organisation and it will be invested with the trust and expectations of millions of British people. Surely they are entitled to expect the highest standards to be enforced on their behalf. One suggestion is that the operator should not be appointed on the basis of any vetting procedures less vigorous than those established over many years by the Gaming Board. Will the Gaming Board's criteria for "fit and proper" form a useful basis for the director general of Oflot when he considers the matter? We would not expect companies that make sizeable contributions to the Tory party to be favoured in such an exercise. There would be a gigantic row if that happened.
I hope that the Minister will spell out the criteria to be used. In the meantime, in general we are prepared to support the amendment.

Mr. James Paice: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) spoilt his speech with that last, rather cheap, political jibe. He knows that I entirely agree with his earlier comments and my hon. Friend the Minister knows that the health of the racing industry is a matter close to my heart.
There is widespread concern in the racing industry that the lottery will have a knock-on effect on the Tote, the

general betting industry and the horse race betting levy. The amendment, which was introduced with the vigour that we would expect from Lord Wyatt, and which has been accepted by the Government, is a major step forward. Without prejudging any outcome, it may provide a way for some make-up of the loss of income for the general betting industry and the Tote. It is a good opportunity for the Tote to expand its operations. As has been said, it has great experience and major resources in sophisticated communications equipment. It has a base spread over most of the United Kingdom and is probably more experienced than any other such company operating in the sector.
I welcome the amendment and I thank my hon. Friend the Minister and the Government for accepting it and thereby allowing the Tote to operate on a level playing field. It is a worth while move. If the Tote gets the licence, that will bring into higher profile the Lloyds bank report on the future of the Tote, on which my hon. Friend the Minister has been sitting for a couple of years. That separate issue would then have to be addressed, but I hope that, as a result of the amendment, my hon. Friend will look favourably at any bid from the Tote.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I am glad to have support for the amendment from my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) and the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry). The hon. Gentleman asked me about the definition of "fit and proper", the Government's view of that phrase and the seriousness with which we took it. He is right. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary covered much of this ground in his reply to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle).
I can add to what my hon. Friend said by telling the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intends to appoint a director general who takes his responsibilities extremely seriously.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Or hers.

Mr. Lloyd: In this case, he embraces her.
The Bill is clear. The director general cannot issue a clause 5 or a clause 6 licence unless he is satisfied that the company concerned, and the shareholders who benefit from it, are fit and proper. He will undertake checks, taking fully into account the standards, experience and methods of the Gaming Board. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde appreciates the effectiveness of the board, which has served us extremely well. The director general will also look at other regulators, because the operation is different from that of the Tote and he may learn from those other bodies. He will do so to satisfy himself in relation to both criminal and financial matters. The potential operators will have to co-operate fully in any investigations that he makes and he will make them before he makes any appointment.
I hope that this addition to what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary had to say will give some assurance to those hon. Members who are rightly interested in the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 24

CONTROL OF DISTRIBUTING BODIES BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE

Lords amendment: No. 8, in page 10, line 36, leave out subsection (2).

The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Peter Brooke): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 11, 23 and 24.

Mr. Brooke: The amendments represent a considerable clarification of the powers contained in the previous version of the Bill. Amendment No. 8 removes the earlier subsection, and amendment No. 10 introduces a new clause aimed precisely at the two sets of circumstances in which we feel lottery funds should not be available.
The purpose behind subsection (2) of the new clause is to ensure that the distribution bodies do not act in a way that may give rise to conflicts of interest. That is in Line with our stated intention that distributors of lottery moneys should not also be beneficiaries. A conflict of interest would arise if a distributor made grants to a body it owned or wholly sponsored, or whose members were appointed by the distributor, or indeed whose membership was the same as that of the distributor.
In bringing the amendment to the House, it is certainly not my intention that the measure should be seen to imply criticism of any of the existing staff or members of the distributive bodies. However, in taking forward legislation, one has to think of the long term. It would be quite wrong for there to be any question in the future, when circumstances may be quite different from now, that the distributive bodies had feathered their own nests with lottery money. It is obviously important that the Government should have the power to prevent this situation from arising.
The amendment is also concerned with Northern Ireland matters. It provides that when my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland considers that the lottery funding of a particular application could benefit a terrorist organisation in Northern Ireland he will be able to seek information from the distributing body concerned and, if appropriate, direct that body to refuse the application. The distributing body would be able to tell the applicant why its application had been refused, but would not be able to disclose publicly the name of the applicant. The powers could also be used to prohibit the funding of a particular project by what might otherwise be an acceptable applicant.
That explains the broad thrust of the provisions, and it might be helpful to the House if the amendment is placed in context in relation to the fight against terrorism in Northern Ireland. A key part of the Government's security strategy is to isolate terrorists from the communities within which they operate. For our part, we recognise the requirement to win and retain the confidence of all sections of the community in the effectiveness and impartiality of the Government's security policy, in the criminal justice system as a whole and in the operational activities of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Army.
The terrorists also recognise the critical importance of public relations within their sides of the community. To

that end, they have established in the past organisations which, taken at face value, have legitimate aims and carry out praiseworthy activities. In reality, these organisations are terrorist deceptions and are fostered and manipulated by terrorists for the purpose of raising the profile and enhancing the standing of their organisations.
In other cases, terrorists have infiltrated respectable organisations and sought to use them for own ends. The current provision is intended to prevent that deceitful evil. Against that background in 1985, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), launched a policy to deny paramilitaries access to funds from the Government. The genesis of the policy was the concern that application of the normal criteria governing financial assistance from the Government could result in public funds being used for purposes that could directly or indirectly assist paramilitary groups. Although that policy has been applied very sparingly indeed—only 28 times in eight years—we believe that it has been effective in depriving paramilitary groups of funds or of an enhanced reputation.
The policy has been applied with sensitivity, and I know from my own experience that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland takes a decision in any such case only after the most careful consideration of the circumstances of the case bearing in mind, on the one hand, public interest and, on the other, the effect on the organisation or individual concerned. The policy has been applied with a willingness to reconsider decisions in the light of information that has been made available, and funding has been restored in a number of such cases.
The policy has been applied above all as a security measure. There is no question of political vetting. The grounds that are considered are security grounds, and no cognisance is taken of the political opinions of any organisation or individual involved. It has been applied fairly on an even-handed basis to groups or individuals on both sides of the community. We are seeking with the amendment to apply the policy to the proceeds of the national lottery. We are under an obligation to regulate the business of the national lottery and it would be a dereliction of duty on our part if we were not to introduce a procedure to enable the denial of funds and the enhancement of reputation to terrorists in Northern Ireland.
We also believe that it is incumbent on us to provide safety for the distribution bodies so that they are not placed in the invidious position of being seen as targets by terrorists because of their actions. We have chosen to confer on the Secretary of State the power to direct the distributing bodies in relation to their operations in Northern Ireland. That measure will make it clear to terrorists in Northern Ireland that if they are deprived of access to funds and influence, it will be a result of a Government decision and will not be due to any initiative of the distributing body. By doing so, we intend to safeguard the distributing bodies from any unfortunate consequences of the decision to withhold funding in a particular case.
Similarly, we are prohibiting bodies from identifying to the general public those subject to direction, as such direction might be taken as implying that the applicants are themselves terrorists and could thus make them the targets of unlawful threats. Frankly, we see no alternative to the provision we are introducing. There are those who say that


the matter should be left to the police with the investigative powers available to them under the emergency provisions legislation, but that reasoning has three major flaws.
First, the experience of the police in Northern Ireland has been that when they investigate a fraud—particularly one that has been perpetrated by terrorists—even a successful prosecution does not result in the recovery of the funds; so money has gone to support terrorists whether or not the investigation has been successful. The second flaw is that criminal law does not provide a remedy where the benefit to a terrorist organisation is an enhanced standing in community. The third and most important flaw is that a reliance on offences is inappropriate for our purposes. We are not in this instance trying to catch criminals but rather are seeking to prevent innocent bodies from being duped into providing a flow of money to terrorist organisations or otherwise enhancing their reputation.
It is quite unreasonable simply to say to such organisations that they are acting at their peril and that, in the event that they provided a benefit to terrorists, they would be in jeopardy of prosecution for a terrorist offence. That would not achieve our aim which is the prevention of the flow of funds to terrorists. It would not result in the prosecution of terrorists but would criminalise innocent parties.
Without the amendment, the Government would find themselves in the position of relying on the other powers of direction in the Bill. But the effect of that would be to require distribution bodies to have regard to the views of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The bodies would thus become aware of our view that a particular distribution could benefit directly or indirectly a terrorist organisation, but it would be entirely for them whether or not to make the distribution. We believe that would place the distribution body in a difficult position and it would be wrong to place that burden on the body.
There is nothing sinister in the amendments. They serve simply to define a power that the Government have accepted was too wide ranging and to close off a loophole that might have allowed lottery money to go to terrorist organisations. It is necessary to make explicit provision for matters in the Bill as national lottery grants are not subject to the controls that are available in the case of voted Government expenditure.
I hope that the national lottery will attract an enormous amount of interest and that the distributive bodies receive applications for project funding from a vast number of organisations from all over the United Kingdom. I am sure that the millions of people who are eagerly awaiting the start of the lottery do not intend that their contributions to good causes should end up in the hands of terrorists. The House would be doing all of those people a great service by agreeing to the amendment.

Mr. Pendry: We are in total agreement with the earlier part of the Secretary of State's speech. Most of the points of clarification that are contained in most of the amendments are down to our efforts in Committee, and therefore we agree with them.
We find great difficulty in accepting amendment No. 10. If there were no alternative to the measure, it seems strange that it was not in the original Bill and was not referred to on Report or in the House of Lords.
The Opposition are implacably opposed to the terrorist campaign in Britain and in Ireland. As a former Minister for Northern Ireland, as was the Secretary of State, I am particularly aware of the problems and sensitivities that exist in the Province. I have spent a good deal of time in New York, Washington and Boston talking to bishops and to the editors of certain newspapers trying to stop the funds coming from Noraid. We need no lessons in that area. The Labour party is totally opposed to those particular activities and we support all attempts to block the terrorists' sources of funding. But in our view the amendment will not achieve that aim. We believe that it is unnecessary and could be counterproductive.
7.30 pm
The Government have claimed that the amendment was introduced as a result of various representations—indeed, the Secretary of State will not mind my saying that only yesterday he told me that himself. We have taken a good deal of time researching the matter and, as far as we are aware, no representations were made in Committee or in either Chamber concerning the possibility of lottery funds being diverted to benefit paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland. As the Secretary of State said, the representations made on the original clause concerned the excessive power that the Secretary of State would be granted to interfere with the decisions of the distributing bodies—indeed, I tabled some amendments in that connection myself. The Government's justification for the proposal was the possibility of a conflict of interest between the receiving and the distributing bodies.
It was not until the Bill reached its final stage in the Lords that Viscount Astor moved an amendment to what was then clause 26, purportedly to enable the Secretary of State to prevent funds from going to proscribed organisations or organisations "promoting or encouraging" terrorism.
The Opposition argue that the present amendment is redundant, however, as legislation already exists to deal with cases where there is evidence of misappropriation of funds and support for paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland. Section 9 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act makes it an offence for a person to make any contributions intending that they be applied or used in connection with acts of terrorism. Section 10 of that Act makes it a criminal offence for a person to receive from or lend money to a proscribed organisation or to come to an arrangement that would benefit a proscribed organisation.
It is already possible under existing legislation to prosecute in a court of law any individual or organisation giving funds to contribute to acts of terrorism or to benefit a proscribed organisation. Amendments to the present Bill would therefore contribute nothing to the fight against terrorism.
Amendment No. 10 is clearly based on the 1985 Hurd statement, introduced purportedly to prevent Government funds from "furthering the aims" of paramilitary organisations. The Opposition oppose the use of that statement as the basis for the amendment on two clear grounds. First, the funds in question are not public funds but funds from the public. That is an important distinction. The Government have consistently argued that funds accrued as a result of the national lottery will not be treated as public money. That is vital if we are to avoid any problems of additionality at this late stage of the


proceedings. Any amendment based on the Hurd statement would only create confusion about the nature of the funds being distributed.
Secondly—and more important—Northern Ireland's experience of the Hurd statement has been that it leads to self-censorship and fear among those in the voluntary sector. The practice in question has been discredited locally, nationally and internationally by the case of Glor Na Gael, the Irish language group, which had its funding withdrawn by way of the Hurd statement. I am sure that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron), who knows much more about the subject than I do, will say more about it if he catches your eye, Madam Speaker. The practice was discredited not because the Government changed their mind but because the matter went to court. We believe that it is vital to avoid a repetition of that case—not least because it served only to damage the Government's campaign to starve the terrorists of cash and, in the process, damage the very Bill that the Government are trying to promote.
Funding can be denied to individuals and groups without any specific allegation of wrongdoing being made —indeed, there is no obligation on the Government even to present any evidence of wrongdoing. The amendment allows funding to be denied on the basis of slurs, innuendo or other unspecified "intelligence" material, which could hardly be considered to constitute evidence and certainly would not do so in a court of law. It is impossible for any group properly to defend itself against unspecified allegations—and in any case there is no right of appeal. That is clearly contrary to all the principles of natural justice and to everything that the House expects.
The amendment would extend political vetting to the whole of Britain as well as Northern Ireland. Decisions taken by the National Lottery Charities Board on United Kingdom funding would be overturned as a result of the amendment.
All the regional voluntary sector organisations in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are opposed to the amendment. It is an insult to the director general of the lottery—when he takes up his post—and to the independent organisations that are to distribute the lottery money to sports organisations, the voluntary sector, arts councils and projects to celebrate the millennium.
The amendment undermines the basis of the Bill. It is completely at variance with the whole idea of independent and transparent decision making in the distribution of lottery funds. The Government should reconsider in the light of overwhelming opposition from the very bodies that are to distribute lottery funds and on the basis of past experience. The Government, in the form of the Secretary of State, should be big enough, even at this late stage, to withdraw the amendment in the interests of justice and common sense. In the absence of a guarantee to that effect, I will certainly ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the amendment in the Lobby tonight.

Dr. Hendron: I share with the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) their absolute opposition to the men of violence, especially as I represent the constituency of Belfast, West, where murder, terror and bombings are the order of the day—we shall hear more of that subject tomorrow and on Friday.
I oppose amendment No. 10 because I have no doubt that it will allow political vetting and confer on the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland excessive powers,

with an absence of any appeal process. I am concerned both about the circumstances in which the power of discretion might be exercised and about that absence of a right of appeal. Speaking on the subject in the House of Lords, Lord Astor made the point that bodies and persons have the normal right of a citizen to make representations to the Government about the operation of their policies, and that scope also exists for a judicial review. All I can say to that in present circumstances is, "Big deal."
The Secretary of State will be able to direct distributors to consult expert bodies on grant applications. I should love to know who those expert bodies are. I have been a political representative in west Belfast for almost 20 years, mainly in local government but also with the Northern Ireland Convention and the Northern Ireland Assembly. I have not seen any of the expert bodies that people are supposed to consult about who should be given funding. As the Member of Parliament for Belfast, West, I have not been consulted. I have certainly had discussions with people about funding that has already been given out, but no one has ever asked me whether I believe that a certain group should be given financial aid. I should certainly like to know who those expert bodies might be.
Like every hon. Member, I should deeply resent it if any public funds, including lottery funds, went into the coffers of the IRA, the UDA or the UVF. It is ironic that, not terribly long ago, hundreds of thousands of pounds were creamed off by the IRA in connection with the building of maisonettes on the Moyard housing estate in west Belfast. Those maisonettes have now disappeared and have been replaced by new housing. I should add that I am in no way criticising the present Northern Ireland Housing Executive, which I believe is doing a magnificent job.
I have given a fair number of years to fighting terrorism in west Belfast, but in the only way that I know that I can, and that is in the political arena. I think it fair to say that I have had some little success in that regard. I believe that responsible public representatives, genuine community leaders, spiritual leaders and, above all, Government bodies must encourage young people, families and community groups and young men and women who have come out of prison—God only knows that there are many of them—away from the evil influence of all paramilitary organisations. They should encourage these people, exhort them and guide them to participate as fully as possible in meaningful, active community organisations.
The Secretary of State will be aware of the Belfast action teams, and will know that money is given to many groups. The Belfast action teams do great work, and I pay tribute to them. I have had discussions with them on many occasions, but I cannot say that I was ever consulted about what money should be given to any particular group. I am therefore cynical about amendment No. 10, and about which bodies will advise the Secretary of State.
Belfast action teams give the money that they receive from the Government to community groups. Strict criteria are laid down for the giving of that money, but it is not vetted by the Secretary of State.
Glor Na Gael, the Irish language group from west Belfast, has won prizes all over Ireland and abroad, but following a statement made a few years ago by the then Secretary of State—the present Foreign Secretary—finance was withdrawn from that group. Legal action was taken, and the Government eventually restored its funding.
The amendment would be dangerous for those active in community and voluntary organisations, because it might


be suggested that they were associated with paramilitary organisations. Of that I have no doubt. It is one of the most important things in the debate. Great fear now stalks the streets in every part of Belfast, not just in my constituency. There are terrorists and murderers around, and people who have been in prison. More people have been in prison per thousand of the population in west Belfast than virtually anywhere else in western Europe in the past 20 years.
Some of them are young people who have been in prison for all sorts of reasons, been released and are now involved in community work. Someone will write to the Secretary of State and say that a, b or c is involved in a particular group, and the Government will decide that that group should not receive any funding. I entirely oppose that.
I pay tribute to the many voluntary bodies and community groups, not only in west Belfast but in north Belfast—in the territory of the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker), who is not present now—in the Catholic Falls road and the Protestant Shankill road. Many of those groups are doing outstanding work in those areas; but for them, the city of Belfast would be in a much worse state than it is today. Those groups are keeping many young people out of paramilitary organisations, although some have been associated with such organisations in the past. I would therefore like to know how the political vetting will be carried out.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: My hon. Friend represents the constituency of Belfast, West; I represent the constituency of Newry and Armagh. Can my hon. Friend envisage a situation in which community groups in our constituencies will not contain some people who support Sinn Fein, have previously supported Sinn Fein or have been through the legal process because of their support of that group? Can he tell me how it would be possible to have a dynamic community organisation in our constituencies that excluded such people?

Dr. Hendron: My hon. Friend is right. One of the difficulties is that we cannot name organisations in Belfast, because if we make a general point that some members of a particular organisation hold certain political views, someone will put a bomb at their door and blow them to kingdom come. The person who named that organisation would be directly responsible for that.
Political vetting of any kind would be wrong, stupid, immoral and counterproductive. While I agree with the Secretary of State about the Provisional IRA, the UDA and other paramilitary organisations, the amendment plays into their hands; they will use it and show it in the United States and around the world. I totally oppose the amendment, and I ask the Government and the House to do the same.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I do not understand the official Opposition's objection to this provision or that of the hon. Members for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) and for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). I have listened with great care to what has been said, but I do not understand how they can object to this provision if they are opposed to the harm that can be done by money going to evil causes. Even if it is right to say that the present law is adequate to stop the

distribution of money to evil causes, surely the belt-and-braces approach being adopted will be of advantage.
An appalling mischief would be done if the profits of the lottery went to evil causes and if, in due course, the public learnt about it. If confidence in the lottery is lost, the lottery is dead. It must be squeaky clean; at no stage should the public suspect that the money that they are contributing through the national lottery is going to an evil cause. If they do that, it will defeat the purpose of the lottery and there will be no money to go to the good causes that exist.
The belt-and-braces approach seems to me to be justified in this particular situation, even if the Opposition are right in saying that it is not strictly necessary because the existing law is adequate. I am not sure that they are right. The existing law may deter the giving of money to evil organisations, but such an action may not come to light until after the money has been given. It may be only subsequently discovered that the law has been broken, that the money has been used—has gone—and only subsequently that criminal charges are brought.
The amendment is designed to pre-empt that. Where it is clear to the Secretary of State that an organisation which benefits from this vast source is likely to use the money for evil ends, he can stop that money from being distributed to that organisation. That will tighten the loophole in the existing law.
Having listened carefully to what hon. Members have said, I am rather surprised that this did not form part of the original Bill. As the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said, we cannot always guarantee that the money will not go, via some person, to an evil organisation, but that is no reason to say that, when we know that an organisation is evil or contains a sufficient number of evil people, it should not be a beneficiary. As for the argument that has just been advanced, that to introduce the measure would play into the hands of the paramilitaries and others, it does not appeal more widely to hon. Members because it savours of the attitude that one must not do anything which is good in case others who are evil use it as an excuse for stepping up the amount of their evil. I would have thought that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, who speaks so movingly and with so much knowledge about terrorism whenever the subject arises, would have appreciated that more than anyone.

Mr. Mallon: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows, I know and everyone in the House knows that during the past 20 years in the north of Ireland millions of people have been creamed off the expenditure of the Housing Executive and other organisations towards paramilitary organisations. The Government knew that that was happening and allowed it to happen, for the good reason that if they had not houses would not have been built. The previous Secretary of State for the north of Ireland knows that as well as I do, and I have no doubt that in different circumstances he would confirm it.
In the north of Ireland, in certain parts of the Protestant community and the Catholic community, irrespective of the circumstances, if an application is made for grant aid in such a situation it will be almost impossible to say that there is no type of antipathetic political definition within that organisation. That is the reality of life in the north of Ireland and, whether we like it or not, we have to live with it.
I know that in an intervention it is not my job to ask a question—

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is not so much a quest ion whether a statement is made or a question asked; it is the length of the intervention.

Mr. Mallon: I agree absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker. If areas are deprived because there are no decent, upstanding people like the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) and myself living there, who take the time and energy to try and deal with that community, are those communities to suffer as a result of their absence?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I have already dealt with his second argument, and I cannot improve upon my answer by repeating it.
As to the first argument, it may be that, as he alleges —though I do not accept it for one moment—the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland's predecessors all knew that some money was being creamed off for evil causes. I do not accept it, but even if it were so, what on earth is the objection to putting a further obstacle in the legislation to the same thing happening through the National Lottery Bill? I simply do not understand it.
Finally, I return to the argument that I began to make, that the issue seems to me to be so important that I am puzzled as to why it did not form part of the original Bill. It may be that we are grappling with a beast so large, with so many ramifications, that as Parliament sits we shall always spot more loopholes, requiring changes, and improvements that need to be introduced, and that we shall end up having an annual lottery amendment Bill, rather like the Finance Bills that we have to consider every year to block loopholes. I know that I have not been especially constructive in saying that, because the Bill that I introduced was an enabling Bill and even less was going to be in the Bill.
An annual lottery Bill procedure might be a bad thing, but perhaps it would be a good thing. Perhaps it would focus hon. Members' minds regularly on the way in which the giant machine will operate. If we do not want such a procedure, however, we shall have to settle down—certainly during the next 12 months—and try to ensure that all that we want in the Bill is written into it. Perhaps we can then suffice with one amendment Bill at this time next year. Perhaps there is a reason why that was not originally in the Bill and perhaps we shall hear that from the Minister when he replies.

Mr. Brooke: I welcome the implacable opposition to terrorism expressed from the Opposition Front Bench by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry). I am grateful to him for what he said in that context. He referred to a conversation with me on the eve of the debate, and I apologise if I misled him in any sense.
On 25 February, in column 294 of the Official Report of the Standing Committee of the Bill, when he was leading for the Opposition and my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key)—I was glad to see him in the Chamber earlier this evening—was leading for the Government, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde inveighed against the dictatorial powers that were then contained in the section. In line with the praise that he bestowed upon the Government in response to an earlier group of amendments, we obviously listened to what he

had to say. He commended certain parts of the new clause that we introduced, which were in response to his propositions.
In practical terms, however, the narrowing of powers that we were obviously being invited to undertake concentrated our minds in the context of those particular provisions relating to Northern Ireland. We had to verify, therefore, whether the new wording of the legislation would cover us adequately. In the light of that it brought —here I turn to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence)—to our attention the fact that the Bill, as originally written, allowed the Secretary of State by order to offer advice to the distributive organisations in the context of the type of organisation that we discussed in the debate. In the process of doing it by order he would be identifying the organisations.
A classic element of what is referred to as the doctrine that my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) originally propounded when he was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in 1985 is that the Government do not identify the organisations. On the occasions when the name of an organisation subsequently appears in the public prints, it is because that organisation has put it into the public prints, not because the Government have done so. The Government have avoided doing so and have sought to preserve anonymity for the reasons that I gave in my earlier speech, which is that they wish to protect that organisation from any suggestion that all those who are engaged in that organisation might have a direct paramilitary connection.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the Minister appreciate that so far he has not answered the following argument? Where an arbitrary decision is made, albeit after careful consultation within the Department, which prevents funds going to a particular organisation without an explanation, cannot the frustration and anger which that arouses among a perfectly legitimate organisation cause it to act as a recruiting ground for the Provisional IRA, which we would all strenuously deplore and oppose? Cannot the legislation have a backlash effect if it is put into practice?

Mr. Brooke: I thank the hon. Member for the manner in which he made that argument. It is one of the considerations that weigh with the holders of the office of Secretary of State for Northern Ireland as to whether they will invoke the particular doctrine in a particular case. I said in my earlier speech, and will refer to it again, that that has happened infrequently. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton will be interested to know that that is the reason why we introduced those aspects of the new clause in the other place.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde spoke about sections 9 and 10. He could also have mentioned section 11 in the same context. I have covered the arguments that relate to those, and I would not assist the House by repeating them. I appreciate that these are complex matters, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not catch the arguments first time round.
The Bill as originally drafted allowed for advice by the Secretary of State. If it remained like that, he would simply be able to advise the distributive body that it would be ill advised to pass money on. He would not be able to give any reasons because, for reasons that we all understand, there is no tradition for doing that. Therefore, the distributive body would have to make a decision without


knowing the precise basis on which the advice was offered. In terms of the sections cited by the hon. Gentleman, one of the problems is that the distributive body might be troubled about whether it was committing a criminal offence by passing on the money.
8 pm
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde made play of the distinction between public funds and funds from the public. Clause 21 refers to the national lottery distribution fund. Once the money enters that fund, it becomes public money for which the Government are answerable, and not public expenditure. That element of the hon. Gentleman's argument does not have anything to do with additionality.
The Government have avoided referring to particular cases, and one of the hazards of making references to them emerged in the debate. At least one hon. Member made incomplete reference to a body that had been affected by the working of my right hon. Friend's doctrine. An incomplete reference could have caused the hazard to spread to another body which was not involved.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde said that "political vetting" would extend throughout Great Britain. He will note from the Bill that that simply applies to grants to organisations in Northern Ireland, although I acknowledge that some Great Britain bodies are responsible for making grants to Northern Ireland. I repeat what is said in the Bill—that the issue determining the Secretary of State's decision and direction is security and not political affiliations. I say to the hon. Members for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) and for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) that, for reasons given in the debate, these decisions are taken with extreme sensitivity.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, who is no longer in the Chamber, asked his hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West how many community groups in his constituency and, he implied, in his own did not have associations with people in, for example, Sinn Fein. In a sense, that rhetorical question made the point that, if almost every community group in those constituencies has the associations that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh implied and if only 28 bodies, a significant number of which were not of the paramilitary persuasion to which the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh refers, have been identified under the doctrine in the past eight years, that shows that the powers have been used sparingly and sensitively.
The House owes a great deal to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton for his pathfinder work on

Power to prohibit distribution in certain cases

(".—(1) Where subsection (2) applies, the Secretary of State may by order prohibit a body from distributing money under section 23(1) to a person specified in the order.

(2) This subsection applies if at the time the order is made—

(a) the person specified is a company of which the body, or a wholly-owned subsidiary of the body, is a member, or

(b) the Secretary of State considers that the body is able (whether directly or indirectly) to control or materially to influence the policy of the person specified in carrying on any undertaking or performing any functions.

(3) In subsection (2)—

this legislation. He envisaged the lottery growing to behemoth size. As the legislation reaches its conclusion, I am glad that he has the faith that the lottery will grow to that size.

The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde opposes Lords amendment No. 10, but he did not table an Opposition amendment. If the House rejects that amendment, the clause will remain as it is, and in that state the hon. Gentleman in Committee inveighed against its dictatorial powers.

Mr. Pendry: It is a bit rich, and stretching matters somewhat, for the Secretary of State to blame me for the amendment. In Committee, my colleagues and I argued that the amendment enhanced the dictatorial powers of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is taking away the autonomy that distributive bodies would have by taking more power to himself. His argument does not in any way answer the point. The original clause would be better than the amended one.
We have had a good debate on the matter, and I do not want to detain the House. I had hoped that the Secretary of State would listen more closely to the hon. Members for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) and for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), even if he did not listen too much to me. When all is said and done, they were speaking not only from the heart but from the front line, as it were. They certainly know better than I and, no doubt, better than the Secretary of State, although we both had some say in Northern Ireland affairs for a time. They are at the sharp end, and they should be listened to.
The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) is as puzzled as we are that this was not included in the original drafting of the legislation. If it is an afterthought, we are asking the Secretary of State to have another. He should look at the matter again. The Government have listened to representations not only from us, but from outside bodies, and it would be a pity to mar that with acrimony at this stage. I hope that the Secretary of State will be big enough to take the matter back. I agree that it is a difficult area, but we should get around a table to try to work out a way of meeting his points, while at the same time not removing the rights of the distributive bodies and staying in line with the general thrust of what I said at the beginning of my speech. I hope that the Secretary of State will do that. If he does not, I shall ask my hon. Friends to divide the House on this important issue of justice.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 9 agreed to.

Lords amendment proposed: No. 10, after clause 24, to insert the following new clause—

(a) "company" means a company formed and registered under the Companies Act 1935 or the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 or a company to which the provisions of that Act or Order apply as they apply to a company so formed and registered, and
(b) "wholly-owned subsidiary" has the meaning given by section 736 of that Act or Article 4 of that Order.

(4) Where subsection (5) applies, the Secretary of State may give directions to a body—

(a) prohibiting it from distributing money under section 23(1) to a person in Northern Ireland specified in the directions, or
(b) requiring it to secure that any money distributed by it under section 23(1) to such a person is not applied for a purpose specified in the directions.

(5) This subsection applies if at the time the directions are given the Secretary of State considers that—

(a) a proscribed organisation for the purposes of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, or
(b) any other organisation that appears to him to be concerned in terrorism in Northern Ireland or in promoting or encouraging it,
might directly or indirectly derive benefit from the distribution of money to the person specified.

(6) In subsection (5) "benefit" includes benefit of a non-financial nature and, in particular, an enhancement of reputation.

(7) A body may not disclose to any other person either the identity of any person specified in directions given to it under subsection (4) or any information that might lead to the identification of such a person.

(8) A body shall provide the Secretary of State with such information as he may require for the purpose of exercising his powers under this section in relation to the body.")

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 274, Noes 126.

Division No. 366]
[8.09 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Aitken, Jonathan
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Alexander, Richard
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Amess, David
Budgen, Nicholas


Ancram, Michael
Burns, Simon


Arbuthnot, James
Burl, Alistair


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Butcher, John


Ashby, David
Butler, Peter


Aspinwall, Jack
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Atkins, Robert
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Carrington, Matthew


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Carttiss, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Cash, William


Baldry, Tony
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Chapman, Sydney


Bates, Michael
Churchill, Mr


Batiste, Spencer
Clappison, James


Beggs, Roy
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bellingham, Henry
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Bendall, Vivian
Coe, Sebastian


Beresford, Sir Paul
Colvin, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Congdon, David


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Conway, Derek


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Booth, Hartley
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Boswell, Tim
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Couchman, James


Bowis, John
Cran, James


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Brandreth, Gyles
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Brazier, Julian
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bright, Graham
Day, Stephen





Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hanley, Jeremy


Devlin, Tim
Hannam, Sir John


Dorrell, Stephen
Hargreaves, Andrew


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Harris, David


Dover, Den
Haselhurst, Alan


Duncan, Alan
Hawkins, Nick


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Hawksley, Warren


Eggar, Tim
Hayes, Jerry


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Heald, Oliver


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Hendry, Charles


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Hicks, Robert


Evennett, David
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Faber, David
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Horam, John


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Fishburn, Dudley
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Forman, Nigel
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Forth, Eric
Hunter, Andrew


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Jenkin, Bernard


French, Douglas
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Fry, Peter
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Gale, Roger
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Gallie, Phil
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Gardiner, Sir George
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Key, Robert


Garnier, Edward
Kilfedder, Sir James


Gill, Christopher
Kirkhope, Timothy


Gillan, Cheryl
Knapman, Roger


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Knox, Sir David


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Hague, William
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Legg, Barry


Hampson, Dr Keith
Leigh, Edward






Lidington, David
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Lightbown, David
Sackville, Tom


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Luff, Peter
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lynne, Ms Liz
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McCrea, Rev William
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shersby, Michael


Maclean, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McLoughlin, Patrick
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Madel, David
Soames, Nicholas


Maitland, Lady Olga
Speed, Sir Keith


Malone, Gerald
Spencer, Sir Derek


Mans, Keith
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marland, Paul
Spink, Dr Robert


Marlow, Tony
Spring, Richard


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sproat, Iain


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Mates, Michael
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stephen, Michael


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stern, Michael


Merchant, Piers
Stewart, Allan


Milligan, Stephen
Streeter, Gary


Mills, Iain
Sweeney, Walter


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Sykes, John


Moate, Sir Roger
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Thomason, Roy


Nelson, Anthony
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Nicholls, Patrick
Thurnham, Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Norris, Steve
Tracey, Richard


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Trend, Michael


Ottaway, Richard
Trotter, Neville


Page, Richard
Tyler, Paul


Paice, James
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Patnick, Irvine
Walden, George


Patten, Rt Hon John
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Waller, Gary


Pawsey, James
Ward, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Pickles, Eric
Waterson, Nigel


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Watts, John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Whitney, Ray


Powell, William (Corby)
Whittingdale, John


Rathbone, Tim
Widdecombe, Ann


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Willetts, David


Richards, Rod
Wilshire, David


Riddick, Graham
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Robathan, Andrew
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wood, Timothy


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Yeo, Tim


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)



Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Mr. Andrew MacKay and


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Mr. Andrew Mitchell.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Byers, Stephen


Adams, Mrs Irene
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Allen, Graham
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Ashton, Joe
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Austin-Walker, John
Coffey, Ann


Barnes, Harry
Connarty, Michael


Bayley, Hugh
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Bermingham, Gerald
Corbett, Robin


Blunkett, David
Corston, Ms Jean


Boyce, Jimmy
Cryer, Bob


Bradley, Keith
Dafis, Cvnog





Darling, Alistair
McLeish, Henry


Davidson, Ian
McMaster, Gordon


Dewar, Donald
McNamara, Kevin


Dobson, Frank
Madden, Max


Donohoe, Brian H.
Mahon, Alice


Enright, Derek
Mallon, Seamus


Etherington, Bill
Mandelson, Peter


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Faulds, Andrew
Meale, Alan


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Michael, Alun


Fisher, Mark
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Flynn, Paul
Miller, Andrew


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Foulkes, George
Morgan, Rhodri


Fraser, John
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Fyfe, Maria
Mudie, George


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Mullin, Chris


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Murphy, Paul


Golding, Mrs Llin
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Gordon, Mildred
Pendry, Tom


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Pickthall, Colin


Gunnell, John
Pike, Peter L.


Hall, Mike
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hanson, David
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hardy, Peter
Prescott, John


Harman, Ms Harriet
Primarolo, Dawn


Hendron, Dr Joe
Randall, Stuart


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Raynsford, Nick


Hinchliffe, David
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Home Robertson, John
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Hood, Jimmy
Sedgemore, Brian


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hoyle, Doug
Short, Clare


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Simpson, Alan


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Skinner, Dennis


Illsley, Eric
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Jamieson, David
Spellar, John


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Stott, Roger


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Leighton, Ron
Straw, Jack


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Lewis, Terry
Wigley, Dafydd


Livingstone, Ken
Winnick, David


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Wise, Audrey


Loyden, Eddie
Wright, Dr Tony


McAllion, John



McAvoy, Thomas
Tellers for the Noes:


McKelvey, William
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and


Mackinlay, Andrew
Mr. Don Dixon.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 47

FREQUENCY OF LOTTERIES

Lords amendment: No. 13, in page 19, line 31, leave out from ("that") to ("under") in line 32 and insert ("may be promoted").

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 14 to 20.

Mr. Lloyd: Lords amendments Nos. 13, 14, 17 and 18 simply tidy up the drafting of or are consequential on clause 47. However, Lords amendment No. 15 represents a change of substance. Its effect is to double both the proceeds and prize limits for a society or local authority lottery. The proceeds limit is increased from £500,000 to £1 million. As a consequence, the maximum single prize goes from £50,000 to £100,000.
We have taken that step in response to the strongly expressed arguments of many in the charities world. The new limits will further enhance the appeal of their lotteries and will help to ensure that they flourish side by side with the national lottery.
The purpose of Lords amendments Nos. 16, 19 and 20 is to give the Secretary of State a reserve power to set by order a minimum proportion of lottery proceeds that must go to the good causes if he feels that it would be in the interest of the good causes to do so. I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Pendry: We agree with this batch of Lords amendments; they are acceptable to us. When the Minister said that he responded to the strong words conveyed to him from the charities, he omitted to mention the eloquent arguments from the Opposition on behalf of the charities. It is a particular pleasure to see a sinner repent, and when that sinner is a Tory Minister it is even more pleasurable. I refer to the Minister specifically. He argued in Committee that a top prize of more than £500,000 would be detrimental to the aims of a national lottery. He went on to say that it would create a series of "mini national lotteries". Since then, wiser counsels have prevailed. With the benefit of hindsight, he can say that he was bent by our arguments —[HON. MEMBERS: "Bent!"] Not "bent" in the way that my hon. Friends mean. The Minister knows exactly what I mean.
As the Minister knows, we argued for a £1·25 million top prize, but we shall not quibble about the fact that the Minister has seen sense and has raised the level to £1 million for the top prize. That makes it far easier for charities to exist in the world that has now been set.

(".—(1) Schedule 2 to the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 (registered pool promoters) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 13 (requirements with which the pool betting business of a registered pool promoter must comply) for sub-paragraph (e) there shall be substituted—

"(e) the total amount payable by way of winnings shall, in the case of each competition, be calculated in accordance with paragraph 13A of this Schedule;".

(3) After paragraph 13 there shall be inserted—


"13A.—(1) In any competition the total amount payable by way of winnings shall be the aggregate of—

(a) the total amount of the stakes in respect of entries in the competition, Less the relevant percentage of that total amount; and
(b) any amount that has been duly carried over to the competition from a previous competition in accordance with any provision made under paragraph 14A of this Schedule;

less any amount that falls to be carried over from the competition in accordance with any such provision.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph "relevant percentage" means such percentage as may be determined by the promoter, being—

(a) the same percentage in respect of all his competitions which depend on the same events or on events taking place on the same day ; and
(b) a percentage which is determined and notified to the accountant before that day."

(4) In paragraph 14—

(a) after "paragraph 13(d) or (e)" there shall be inserted "or 13A", and

The Government have said that their aim in amending the Lotteries and Amusement Act 1976 in part III was to enable voluntary organisations to maintain their small lottery income in the face of competition from the national lottery. During our debates on the Bill, one of our major concerns was the possible impact of the national lottery on charities. Charities will, therefore, welcome the national lottery if it provides additional resources for them, which they now feel confident will be the case. We especially welcome Lords amendments Nos. 15 and 16, but we support the whole batch of amendments.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am ambivalent about this concession to the charities. We must be careful to ensure that the national lottery is a success. I believe that, to some extent, we are diminishing the chances of that success, which was originally the Government's position. However, we can with a better grace give more money to the charities as we can see that the administration costs that they take are on average no more than 4 per cent.
This is a timely moment to remind ourselves that when we give money to the Arts Council, it takes about 9 per cent. to 10 per cent. in administrative costs. When we give money to the Sports Council, it takes about 30 per cent. in administration costs. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends who are concerned with the national lottery will keep a very close eye on the way in which the beneficiaries of this great enterprise use on administration some of the resources that should go to grass roots good causes.

Question put and agree to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to, one with Special Entry.

Lords amendment: No. 21, after clause 53, insert the following new clause—Roll-over of prize money—

(b) for "paragraph 13(e)" there shall be substituted "paragraph 13A".

(5) After paragraph 14 there shall be inserted—

"14A.—(1) Subject to any directions under paragraph 14B of this Schedule, the rules applicable to any competition may provide that if none of the bets in the competition qualifies for, or for a share in, the first prize—

(a) the amount of that prize shall be carried over to the next relevant competition, or
(b) part of that amount shall be carried over to the next relevant competition and the balance shall be applied as mentioned in paragraph 14(1)(b) of this Schedule.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph—

(a) "the first prize" means the highest prize that can be won, having regard to the outcome of the events on which the competition depends (and not any higher prize that could have been won had the outcome of those events been different),
(b) "the next relevant competition" means the next competition to be held by the same registered pool promoter under the same rules within the fourteen days following the day on which the result of the competition is determined, and
(c) the reference in paragraph (b) to part of the amount referred to in paragraph (a) is to such proportion of that amount as may be specified in the rules or as may be determined by the promoter in accordance with the rules.


14B.—(1) The Secretary of State may direct that any provision made under paragraph 14A of this Schedule—

(a) is not to have effect, or
(b) is to have effect subject to such limitations as are specified in the direction.

(2) The limitations that may be specified under sub-paragraph (1)(b) of this paragraph include—

(a) limitations as to the number of competitions from which amounts may be carried over, and
(b) limitations as to the period within which any such competitions may be held.

(3) Any directions under this paragraph shall be given in writing and may be varied or revoked by subsequent directions."

(6) In paragraph 15—

(a) after "paragraph 13(d) or (e)" there shall be inserted "or 13A", and
(b) for "paragraph 13(e)" there shall be substituted "paragraph 13A".

(7) In paragraph 20(1) (information relating to a competition which the promoter is required to include in a statement to the accountant) after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted—

"(bb) the amount (if any) carried over to the competition from a previous competition in accordance with any provision made under paragraph 14A of this Schedule;
(bbb) the amount (if any) carried over from the competition in accordance with any such provision;".

(8) In paragraph 21 (statement as to commission and expenses which the promoter is required to send to every competitor in a competition)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1)(a) for the words from "after deducting" to the end there shall be substituted "after making in respect of each of those competitions the deductions mentioned in subparagraph (1A) of this paragraph;", and
(b) after sub-paragraph (1) there shall be inserted—

"(1A) In relation to any competition, the deductions referred to are—

(a) a deduction of the aggregate of the total amount payable by way of winnings in the competition and any amount carried over from the competition in accordance with any provision made under paragraph 14A of this Schedule, less any amount carried over to the competition in accordance with any such provision, and
(b) a deduction of the amount of pool betting duty payable in respect of the competition."

(9) In paragraph 23(1) (content of annual statement to be sent by registered pool promoter to accountant and registering authority) in paragraph (b) for the words from "after deducting" to the end there shall be substituted "after making in respect of each of those competitions the deductions mentioned in paragraph 21(1A) of this Schedule;".")

Read a Second time.

Mr. Pendry: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 66, after 'paragraph', insert 'may'.
I have already put on record my pleasure at the distance that the Government have travelled to meet our concerns about the potential impact of the national lottery on the pools business and consequently on the jobs of many thousands of employees on Merseyside, in Cardiff, in Glasgow and in London.
From the earliest stages of the Bill, we have always maintained that the two operations, both long-odds and low-stake forms of soft gambling, would compete for similar markets. A number of changes have now been made to the Bill which give us and, far more importantly, the pools companies confidence that the industry and the lottery can exist side by side.
The decision to legalise the sale of pools coupons in shops was the first important step to allowing the pools to compete on fair and level terms with the lottery. The reduction of the minimum age of pools customers to 16, in line with the minimum age which the Government have told us will be applied to lottery customers, was the second step. However, we wish the age limit of 18 years to apply to the national lottery and the pools. Nevertheless, it was a move in the right direction for the pools, as was giving the pools the right to sponsor television and radio programmes unrelated to football. Finally, the acceptance by the Government that the pools companies should be given the same right to roll over their prizes as the national lottery heralded a real victory for reason and common sense.
It is worth recalling the Minister's words on Report. I hate to quote him too many times, but he said:
I am glad to be able to say that I am convinced that there is a good cause for allowing the football pools to operate limited rollovers similar to the national lottery … we intend to introduce our proposals in another place to ensure that, where rollover is involved, the pools will enjoy similar freedom and opportunity to those enjoyed by the national lottery."—[Official Report, 28 April 1993; Vol. 223, c. 1019.]
That was said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) on Report.
8.30 pm
The Government introduced a new clause in the Lords, now appearing as Lords amendment No. 21, which permitted equivalent roll-over to the pools in the lottery.
There remains, however, one outstanding issue on roll-over which our amendment seeks to rectify and I hope that the Government will be minded to cede to our request. It concerns the three-month time limit that the Government may place on pool roll-over credits.
Under current Government proposals, it is only when a roll-over has occurred in the national lottery that a pools promoter will be allowed to roll over prize money. At this stage, and not before, a direction will be issued by the Home Office authorising a pools promoter to roll over money on one occasion for each type of competition he promotes, but, as I understand it, within a three-month time limit. At the end of three months, if there has been no opportunity to use the roll-over credit, it lapses. We object to that restriction, particularly as no similar measure is applied to the lottery itself.
If the three-month restriction were to remain, it is quite possible that the lottery would roll over a prize and in so doing enjoy the benefits of additional business that that would generate while the pools credit would expire before there was an opportunity to use it. Clearly, in this instance the lottery would be operating a roll-over on unfair terms and the commitment by the Minister of State would not have been met. I am sure that he recognises that it would be a pity if his generous spirit deserted him when meeting the arguments we ranged on Report and in Committee.
The likelihood of an unused roll-over credit is heightened by the very nature of the pools operation. Unlike the lottery, where it is possible to fashion games in a way that produces a high probability of roll-over jackpots, the pools are subject to the vagaries of match results, as the Minister knows. It is therefore impossible to predict the number of winning chances that may be created from week to week and consequently impossible for pools promoters to engineer roll-overs.
There have been several occasions in recent months when in a three-month period no match result sequence has produced the circumstances which would have allowed the operation of roll-over for the pools. In those circumstances, current proposals for a three-month time limit would have meant the pools missing out on an equivalent opportunity to roll over, placing them in an unfavourable and unfair market position in relation to the lottery.
I hope that the Minister understands the deep concern that we and the pools industry feel in this matter. It is not so much about persuading the Government to agree to the principle of equal treatment—that has already been conceded by them—as about ensuring that the Government carry out their promise of full and equal treatment.
I hope that the Minister will reflect and make a concession to meet that particular point. It may seem technical, or even a bit petty, but it is real for the pools industry. I know that it is grateful for the way in which the Government have moved on the arguments that have been put before them.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: As the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) said, amendments Nos. 21 and 22 fulfil an undertaking that I gave the House on Report, in the debate on the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton). They will give the pools companies the opportunity to roll over prize money on terms similar to those which apply to the national lottery by amending schedule 2 to the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963.
The substance of new clause 58 is in subsection (5), which provides that, subject to any directions which may be made by the Secretary of State, a pool promoter may roll over part or all of the first prize in a pools competition in circumstances where that first prize was achievable but not achieved.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman expressed himself pleased with the distance that the new clause had gone. I wish that I could be equally encouraging about the amendments which he ably moved. It is not so much that my good will has evaporated as that we have a difference of opinion, at least at this stage, across the Dispatch Box as to how the new arrangements would work and who would be at a disadvantage.
The hon. Member's amendments seek to remove any limit to the period in which the football pools could roll following a direction. The effect of this, however, would be to permit the football pools to accumulate credits for roll-over in such a way that they would have considerable freedom to pick and choose the occasions on which to take advantage of the opportunity that the credit gave them.
If, for example, there has been a roll-over in the national lottery, the football pools, knowing that they are likely to roll over with considerable frequency, may not use the direction on the first occasion that they do not have a winner. They might decide to wait until another time which suits their promotional purposes more readily.
We have to bear in mind the fact that the pools are free to change the rules of their competitions, and have done so only recently to make roll-over more likely. The jackpot draw which the pools companies introduced on 27 February this year makes it less likely that there will be a winner each week, and therefore more likely that there will be a roll-over.
Figures which the pools promoters have provided show that, in the six months following the introduction of the jackpot draw, the pools on average could have rolled over at least eight times each. If I remember correctly, for one of them it was up to 14 times, while I certainly do not expect the national lottery to do so more than two or three times a year. If there were no time periods to constrain them, they could plan with reasonable certainty to take the roll-overs in almost any month they chose. That would give them a significant advantage over the national lottery.
Roll-over in the national lottery will be purely by chance, and cannot be planned in advance. The football pools, on the other hand, could be given a considerable marketing advantage in being able to select a season. The national lottery is a new entrant in a competitive market, and I do not believe that it would be right to give the football pools such an advantage as amendments (a) and (b) seem to do.
The provisions of clause 58 and the direction-making power is designed to give the pools equality with the

("Committees

2.—

(1) The Charities Board shall establish four committees for the

national lottery on roll-over, as the hon. Gentleman reminded me I said before. By that I mean that, if the national lottery rolls, the pool will roll.
Every pools company will have that ability in all the competitions which they run. It is not just the treble chance competition but any other competition as well. That means that, if the national lottery rolls twice, the pools will be able to roll twice, and if the national lottery rolls three times, they will be able to roll three times as well. The same limit on consecutive roll-overs will apply to both cases.
However, we are still in discussion with the pools promoters about the length of the time period in which roll-overs, once triggered, would have to be rolled. It would not be right to accept the Opposition argument for no limit. As the hon. Gentleman correctly said, we have been considering a three-month limit. The pools promoters have made representation that this period should be longer, and we are looking carefully at the arguments they have put to us.
However, there must be some time period so that the arrangements operate in a way that is fair to the national lottery and are clearly and readily understood by everyone. If there were no limits, the postponed use of roll-overs by some pools companies would make it difficult to determine how many they had owing to them and how many they had used. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his amendments.
Before I sit down, I want to emphasise that the operation of the Home Secretary's direction-making power will be kept under review. The great advantage of such a power lies in its flexibility. If my right hon. and learned Friend judges that the restrictions and limits should be changed in the light of experience, he can set different ones. His aim —again I confirm this for the hon. Gentleman and the House—will always be to achieve, as far as is possible, a just and equal balance between the pools and the lottery.
I hope that that provides some reassurance for the hon. Gentleman—and other hon. Members who are concerned about that important matter—that the general principles agreed on both sides of the House will be those that we put not only into the law—the new clause contains that provision—but in the rules that the Home Secretary makes under that provision.

Mr. Pendry: The Minister has been most helpful. Of course I am disappointed that he has not accepted my amendment, but the manner in which he opposed it was constructive. I am pleased that talks with the pools operators will continue. The philosophy that the Minister espoused on Report is still with him. No doubt there will be a healthy clash between the hon. Gentleman and the operators and an acceptable solution will result. The pools companies are satisfied with the negotiations so far. I hope that those negotiations will continue to be satisfactory.

Amendment to the Lords amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to, one with Special Entry.

Schedule 5

THE NATIONAL LOTTERY CHARITIES BOARD

Lords amendment: No. 35, in page 31, leave out lines 8 to 26 and insert—

purpose of exercising the Board's functions in relation to applications by charities for grants in respect of appropriate activities in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland respectively.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1)—

"appropriate activities" means activities in relation to which the Charities Board consider it appropriate to delegate their functions to a committee established under that sub-paragraph, and
"charities" includes institutions such as are mentioned in paragraph (b) of the definition of "charitable expenditure" in section 41(1).

(3) Subject to sub-paragraph (1), any function of the Charities Board may be exercised by any committee of theirs authorised by them (whether generally or specially) for that purpose.
(4) A committee of the Charities Board shall consist of a chairman and two or more other members.
(5) Subject to sub-paragraph (6), all the members of a committee of the Charities Board shall be members of the Board.
(6) In the case of a committee other than one established under sub-paragraph (1), any member other than the chairman may be a person who is not a member of the Charities Board but is appointed to the committee by the Secretary of State at the Board's request.

Tenure of office

2A.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, a person shall hold and vacate office as chairman or other member of the Charities Board or a committee of theirs in accordance with the terms of his appointment.
(2) The Secretary of State shall not appoint a person to hold office as a member of the Charities Board or a committee of theirs for a term of more than five years.
(3) A chairman or member of the Charities Board or a person appointed to a committee of theirs by the Secretary of State may at any time resign his office by notice in writing addressed to the Secretary of State.
(4) A member of the Charities Board or a person appointed to a committee of theirs by the Secretary of State may be removed from office by the Secretary of State on the ground that—

(a) he has been absent for a period longer than three consecutive months from meetings of the Board without the Board's consent or (as the case may be) from meetings of the committee without the committee's consent,
(b) a bankruptcy order has been made against him or his estate has been sequestrated or he has made a composition or arrangement with, or granted a trust deed for, his creditors, or
(c) he is unable or unfit to discharge the functions of his office.

(5) If a chairman of the Charities Board or a committee of theirs ceases to be a member of the Board he shall also cease to be chairman.
(6) A person who ceases, otherwise than by virtue of sub-paragraph (4), to be a member or chairman of the Charities Board or a committee of theirs shall be eligible for re-appointment.")

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 36 to 38.

Mr. Lloyd: For the distribution of the charities' share of the lottery proceeds, the Bill envisages a Charities Board of 16 members, plus a chairman appointed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. He has agreed that, of those 16, he will appoint three on the nomination of each of the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, for Scotland and for Wales. He will also appoint three in respect of England and four in respect of the United

Kingdom as a whole. Those groups of three nominees will collectively form the majority membership of the national committees that the board will be required to establish.
The size of the Charities Board can be increased by order, but anything much bigger, as well as being unduly bureaucratic, would be unwieldy as a central policy-making body. As it is, too, the committee responsible for any constituent part of the United Kingdom will be composed predominantly of those nominated by the relevant Secretary of State. They will sit on the Charities Board and they will form a majority of the board members. Thus the interests both of the United Kingdom as a whole and of its constituent nations will be protected.
However, many important voices in the charitable world have expressed the worry that a board of 16 would


not, by itself, be adequate for the volume of work expected, which might be as many as 100,000 grant applications per year.
Amendments Nos. 35 to 38 address that concern. They enable the Home Secretary, at his discretion but on application by the board, to appoint as members of any board committees, other than the four national ones, people who are not members of the board itself—for example, a committee for charities operating overseas, perhaps in the Commonwealth. The decision-making powers of those appointees will be restricted to the committees on which they serve. The committees will be required to have a board member as chairman and their proceedings at any meeting will not be valid unless at least one of those present is a board member.
I hope that the House will find that a sensible and practical solution to what could have been a considerable pipeline blockage when the board is established. We have made the arrangement to deal with what I expect to be a very large amount of business coming to the board.

Mr. Pendry: We accept amendments Nos. 36 to 38, which are largely technical. I want to speak specifically to amendment No. 35.
I am sure that the charities appreciate the Minister's good will in accepting their arguments and introducing this welcome amendment. The previous requirement would have made it almost impossible for the board to set up the full range of regional or local specialised committees that it might consider necessary to enable it to carry out its work effectively across the United Kingdom. The amendment will make it easier for the board to set up a full range of committees and to maintain the necessary link with the board.
As I am probably speaking for the last time on this Bill, I want to say how much I, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) and all those who served on the Committee realise that we have been dealing with some very reasonable Ministers—the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who was with us during the Committee stage, and, latterly, the Under-Secretary of State.
We believe that we have made enormous progress in ensuring that a true national lottery will take place next year. We hope that it will be very successful.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: As this may be my last speech on the Bill, I want to say that I appreciate the remarks of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry). Reasonable Oppositions help to produce reasonable Governments. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has found our responses to his points constructive. I and my colleagues have found his approach helpful and sensible. Between both sides of the Committee and the House, we now have a better Bill than we started with. I give my thanks and my praise to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues for that.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I welcome these final stages of the Bill, for which I claim a modest degree of paternity—if that is possible in genealogical terms. But at this valediction I should say something about how far the Bill has departed from what I originally had in mind.
Originally, I had in mind not only a lottery that would raise the quality of life in Britain to even higher levels by

providing new resources for the arts, sport, heritage, charity and the millennium fund, which we added in due course, but a lottery in which the state played a lesser part than it now appears to be playing. I am afraid that we have a nationalised state lottery of a kind that I had hoped we would not have.
I envisaged a lottery in which big business played a lesser part and in which, perhaps, a charitable foundation was responsible for the distribution of the money. Big business may be able to make an efficient business organisation work for the raising of money, but not before it has drained from the national lottery a substantial sum of money. One of the bidders for the lottery has 100 people working for it already, just to put its bid in order. One can look down the list and see that there is a real danger, which I hoped would never happen, that big business will drain off substantial sums of money that would otherwise be devoted to charities, art, sport, heritage and the millennium fund.
That may not happen. One cannot look into the future and see. But the chances are that it will and, if it does, we will rue the day that we were not more dedicated in setting up a charitable foundation, not just in the form that we have been discussing in the amendment, but to control the organisation and distribution of the lottery.
I hope that the charitable committees that will be set up will also adequately supervise the charities concerned in order to ensure that a minimum amount of money is spent on administration and a maximum on benefits, which is what this is all about. I thought that it was inevitable when I introduced my Bill that the Exchequer would want to take a large sum of money out of the national lottery, and we asked for and obtained assurances from the Government that there would be no reduction in the money that was spent on the arts, sport, heritage and good causes as a result of the lottery. But I fear that if the various taxes that will go to the Exchequer from the national lottery are aggregated, again we will find that money that should have benefited the good causes will not do so to the extent necessary.

Sir Dudley Smith: If that should happen, we shall be blamed for it by the public. I hope that it does not happen.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that we shall not open up the argument that we had on Second Reading.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: No. I am talking about charities, which is the subject of the amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The amendment is about committees.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Charitable committees, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I can hang on by my fingertips long enough to say that if, in future, the Government seek to take more money in taxation from the national lottery, they should remember that its benefits come not just from taxation but from the allocation of resources to sport and the arts, which will, for example, distract a fair number of the juveniles who are now turning their hands to crime to good acts within society and that will reduce the cost to the Government of an enormous amount of juvenile crime.
If people are directed by the national lottery to engage more in sport and leisure, there may be a better feeling in society. There will be less absenteeism, harder work and


less ill health and the Government will save enormous sums of money which would justify their raising less in taxation.
I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your indulgence in allowing me, in the dying moments of the Bill as it passes through the House, to make those remarks about the way that I would have preferred the legislation to go.

Question put and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to, one with Special Entry.

European Convention on Human Rights

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Michael Brown.]

Mr. Graham Allen: It is a sad commentary on this place that our democracy and our constitution are rarely debated in the Chamber. The rights of our citizens should be the issue most keenly discussed and most urgently debated, yet it finds no room on our parliamentary agenda, which is given to us by the Executive who control the House. In many ways that is why Parliament has become increasingly irrelevant to finding the answers to our economic and social problems. Above all, it is the reason why reform of the House of Commons is so central to rebuilding democracy in our country.
Nowhere is that inadequacy more laughably illustrated than in the fact that an hon. Member must win a place in the weekly raffle for an Adjournment debate at odds of over 100:1 before using that precious opportunity to raise the issue of human rights. That such a matter is debated only due to a stroke of luck rather than as a deliberate duty of the House may explain why the House and its inmates are held in such low esteem and treated with such deserved contempt by the Government and people of this country.
Contrary to parliamentary mythology, people are interested in democracy. It is not only the chattering classes that talk about the failure of our political process. Everyone discusses the poll tax, pit closures, the state of our schools and hospitals and asks, "Why?". The simple truth is that command politics have not delivered. We need to try something different. Pluralism and a variety of independent and legitimate institutions and defensible human rights are a key part of that agenda.
It is essential that human rights are dealt with seriously and I have particular pleasure in initiating this debate on the day that Amnesty International launches a new worldwide campaign in protest at continuing political killings and disappearances. I am delighted to use this opportunity to extend my thanks and those of all who are concerned about human rights to the work of Amnesty International. In the United Kingdom Parliament ringing tribute should also be put on record to Liberty, formerly the National Council for Civil Liberties, and to Charter 88, both of which have kept the candle of human rights alight in the recent darkest years of centralism.
I was pleased to receive from those two organisations this morning a 6 ft high copy of the Human Rights (No. 3) Bill which I presented in the Chamber yesterday. That Bill, when enacted by the next Labour Government, will incorporate into British law the fundamental human rights that are guaranteed by the European convention on human rights. Those rights are currently guaranteed to citizens of every EC country apart from our own. Incorporation would give our citizens equal protection and equal remedies to those available in virtually all other European democracies. The argument of Charter 88, Liberty, Amnesty International and of those in my party, other parties and of no party is that if we have rights, they should be written down for all to see. If the Government can write down our rights as consumers—I welcome that—why cannot they write down our rights as citizens?
The 1993 Labour party conference endorsed as the policy of our party the most radical package of democratic reforms ever proposed. My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition summed it up when he said:
We are proposing nothing less than a new constitution of citizenship for a new century. A new and modern conception of citizenship, which recognises the importance of the community acting together to advance individual freedom. A revitalised democracy which protects the fundamental rights of each and every citizen, regardless of race, colour, gender or creed. A system of government that is open, accountable and close to the people it is elected to serve.
He went on to say:
We in the Labour party—unlike any other party—see the vital link between rights in the workplace and rights at the ballot box. We need both, if we are to create a society of free and self-confident citizens.
Labour's starting point for defining rights in the United Kingdom must begin with incorporating the European convention on human rights. At the moment, any person in the United Kingdom can take out a human rights case, but in Europe, not in our own country. Incorporation would allow the rights of British citizens to be directly protected in our British courts—rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, the right of privacy and many others.
The convention has a good claim to be one of the world's most successful instruments of human rights enforcement. The problems of the European Court of Human Rights—too many cases and lengthy processes—are the problems of success. I am pleased that the need to update the procedures of the court has been recognised, finally, by the Government.
The agreement reached in Vienna on 9 October—draft protocol No. 11—between the Heads of State and Governments of the member states of the Council of Europe has arisen specifically from the escalating demands and from the further cases expected following the admission to full membership of countries in central and eastern Europe. The European convention on human rights will soon need to service 800 million individuals. International barrister Andrew Drzemczewski has argued:
those in much less privileged parts of Europe—whether they be in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo or in the Caucasus—may have a glimmer of hope that they too have recourse against barbarities which we (mistakenly) considered to be confined to the annals of history".
The problem with existing arrangements in Strasbourg is that, on average, the Commission filtering process takes three years while the court process takes two years. Anthony Lester QC, now Lord Lester of Herne Hill—in my opinion the founding father of the British Bill of Rights movement—warned that cases may take a minimum of 10 years to be heard, and possibly as many as 15 years, unless the system is radically reformed and adequately funded. On average, it takes the court five years to reach a decision, and that does not even take into consideration the domestic proceedings that precede a petition to Strasbourg. The old dictum of justice delayed is justice denied could never have found a more appropriate setting than the European Court as it is currently composed.
It is ironic, however, that proposals to reform the system have been made in secret and without proper consultation with non-governmental organisations. None the less, the proposals are welcome. I hope that the Minister will take the chance to explain whether he has any proposals to open

up and make less secretive the process of discussion and negotiation on the reform of the court and the extension of human rights.
The agreement reached at Vienna proposes a number of long-overdue reforms—reforms that have been pressed on the Government by Labour Members. The proposals include the elimination of the unnecessary Commission stage and ensuring that all human rights cases are sent directly to the court. In addition, in the vast majority of cases the new court will sit in a streamlined chamber of seven judges, who for the first time will meet on a full-time basis. Unfounded cases will be sifted out of the system at an early stage by unanimous decision of the court composed of three judges.
The Vienna agreement ensures that all allegations of the violation of the rights of individuals will go before the court rather than the Committee of Ministers. We welcome all those proposals and urge the Government to ratify them next May.
I have a specific concern about one particular area and I should like the Minister to address it. At the moment, a Government must specifically make a declaration to allow the right of petition for their citizens. We believe that the right of petition should automatically accrue to all individuals on accession to the covenant by their Government rather than having to rely on the political good will of a Government. I understand, however, that the Conservatives and France and Turkey do not support the proposal for an automatic right of petition for individuals. Will the Minister therefore clarify the Government's position and confirm whether his Government support an entrenched right or petition in the covenant?
Why must this Conservative Government be dragged kicking and screaming every inch of the way on citizens' rights? Even when they are found to be in breach of European Court decisions they grudgingly implement the minimum level of compliance, which often results in further expensive and protracted litigation.
We welcome the recommendations for reform that were made at Vienna—they are but a first tentative step in the right direction. The creation of meaningful democracy in Europe and the United Kingdom will take more than reform of the procedures of the European Court of Human Rights, important though that is. Rights must be used as a framework for a judicial system here at home. If an individual can seek redress under our domestic court system, we shall dramatically reduce the impediments to securing justice, notably the time taken, the travel that is necessary and the expense. That would make justice accessible to all.
A pressing need now exists to overhaul and modernise the structure of our democracy to break the stranglehold of the Executive and to end the winner-takes-all approach to politics. The political system in Britain is failing to protect individual rights, just as it is failing socially and economically. Free, confident and assertive individuals need open, democratic and accountable institutions to grow and flourish. We must create a new culture of rights that will give substance to the inalienable right of citizenship, ending for ever the debilitating culture of hierarchy, deference and class which so holds back our country today.
The Labour party is committed to a major package of constitutional reforms: a Bill of Rights, reform of the royal prerogative, an elected second Chamber, independence for local government, a modernised judiciary, a Scottish Parliament, a Welsh assembly and the introduction of


proportional representation to elect the European Parliament and the second Chamber. As a package, those measures are essential components in the safeguarding of individual rights and in the building of our democracy.
Sadly, the Government have a shameful record as the prime violators of the European convention on human rights. Since 1979, 29 landmark cases have been brought against the United Kingdom, more than against any other country in the European Community. The judgments did not involve marginal or trivial cases; they have invariably involved fundamental issues such as the ending of unfair press curbs in the United Kingdom, the ending of unjust restrictions on prisoners' access to lawyers, the ending of unacceptable restrictions on the husbands and wives of immigrants, the creating of effective judicial protection for mental patients and for prisoners serving life sentences and requirements for new controls on telephone tapping. The Government's record should concern all of us here, whether or not we are members of the Government.
I make a pledge as Labour's spokesman on the constitution: incorporating into British law of the citizen's rights found in the European convention will take place speedily under the next Labour Government and that will be only a beginning. We shall then examine, by means of an all-party commission, a home-grown British Bill of Rights to give effect to the equally important international covenant on civil and political rights.
For the past 14 years, we have watched the Govermnent ride rough-shod over our rights. It is time the balance was redressed. Our constitutional system, with no checks and no balances, cannot now pass the test of a modern democracy. We need to establish the fundamental pillar of all democracies—a separation of powers. We need to consider once again the balance between the powers of the legislature, the Executive and the judiciary. The Labour party's policy to give our citizens written rights, embodied in the Bill that I presented to the House yesterday, is the first small step on that long road.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) for selecting this subject for debate and I welcome it for two reasons. First, the subject that he has chosen—the reform of procedures under the European convention on human rights—is clearly important to the United Kingdom and all its citizens. It is not a subject to which the House has paid much attention in recent years and the debate therefore provides us with a rare opportunity to discuss it. The hon. Gentleman and I can probably agree about that.
Secondly, I welcome the debate because it allows me to set the record straight. The United Kingdom's position on reform of ECHR procedures has, I am afraid, been consistently misrepresented in the press and other media. The hon. Gentleman referred to the growing burden placed on the Commission and the Court, which has been plain for all to see. There are two main reasons for it.
The first is the increasing number of member states of the Council of Europe which are willing to accept the right of individual petition under the convention. Indeed, within the past five years, it has been accepted by all member states. The second reason is the growing awareness of the convention, and the possibility of recourse under its provisions, among the people of Europe.
For some years, the United Kingdom has actively sought to improve the administration of the ECHR institutions to enable it to deal with its increasing workload, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and to reduce delays. We have, therefore, taken steps to promote changes that might offer some fairly swift and substantial relief. For example, it was the United Kingdom which played a key role in seeking and securing from the Council of Europe an increase in resources for the Commission's secretariat to enable it to keep pace better with the demands placed on it. The United Kingdom has sought to persuade its partners in the Council of Europe that improvements might be achieved by introducing changes to the working practices of the Commission and the Court.
That was not a means of deflecting attention from more fundamental reforms. We agreed that those needed to be tackled, especially in the light of the accession of new member states to the Council of Europe, but we hoped that our colleagues would be prepared to consider more immediate measures, given the time that would inevitably be needed to implement any new protocol reforming the ECHR institutions. We were disappointed that our arguments on that point failed to convince. Nevertheless, we accept that the question of structural change to the ECHR institutions needs to be tackled urgently and we have fully participated in that work.
The declaration that concluded the Council of Europe's summit in Vienna on 9 October confirmed the intention of the Heads of Government to establish a new court of human rights to consider all applications made by individuals under article 25 of the convention. That declaration had the full support of the United Kingdom. There is still a good deal of negotiation to be undertaken on the detailed operation of the new court.
The hon. Gentleman has mentioned that the United Kingdom opposed a single court structure. It is true that we initially favoured a reformed two-tier mechanism because we felt that it would be better able to deliver the standards of jurisprudence and efficiency required of such an international body. But our main aim has been to ensure that, whatever the structure, it includes the elements necessary to achieve those objectives.
In negotiations the United Kingdom has made it clear that any reform of the ECHR procedures should incorporate three important features. The first is an adequate system for filtering cases. Under the present arrangements the Commission and its secretariat have established effective procedures for disposing of cases that are outside the scope of the convention, or otherwise clearly inadmissible, before serious consideration is given as to merits. It will be important for a single body to establish some comparable system if it is not to impose unnecessary and unacceptable burdens on its judges.
The second of our objectives has been to ensure the maintenance of satisfactory friendly settlement procedures. The opportunity for the parties to an action to reach a settlement among themselves is a long-standing and important feature of judicial proceedings of that kind. If such a settlement can be achieved, it will have the advantage of reducing the work of the court. Under the present system the commission has played a valuable role in facilitating friendly settlement, which I know is appreciated by other member states. The arrangement works well. In a single court the parties may be more inhibited about exposing their positions to a body that will also be responsible for making the final judgment. That is


not to say that friendly settlement will be rendered impossible, but care will be needed as to how it should be handled.
The third of our objectives has been to secure, within a reformed court, the opportunity for a second hearing of a case. We consider it wholly right that where a decision breaks new ground, or is otherwise of significance, there should be an opportunity for the matter to be tested afresh. We do not think that that is an unreasonable objective; after all, most judicial systems allow some form of appeal. Indeed, the European Court of Justice incorporated such a mechanism a few years ago.
We also believe that the opportunity for cases to be reviewed will provide an important means of maintaining standards of jurisprudence within the reformed court. That is not because we consider that the judges in a new court will be any less competent or diligent than those under the present system, but the pressures on judges operating within a single body will inevitably be greater and an appeals procedure will provide a valuable means of maintaining both the quality and the consistency of the judgments reached.
I have noted the suggestion in the press that an appeals procedure is to be incorporated into the reformed court at the insistence of the United Kingdom. Although it is true that, as I have said, we consider that an important objective, I should make it clear that we are by no means alone in that view. The majority of countries now favour some form of appeals mechanism. Indeed, its inclusion in the revised model for a single court has enabled the proposal to attract general support amongst member states.
Although a draft protocol to reform the ECHR procedures has been prepared, a good deal of detailed work still needs to be done. The European convention on human rights and its machinery have stood the test of time for more than 40 years. The proposals for reform now being discussed in Strasbourg will constitute the most radical change to the operation of the convention in its lifetime.

Mr. Allen: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Wardle: Yes, but swiftly. I know that the hon. Gentleman will understand.

Mr. Allen: I thank the Minister for his usual courtesy and generosity in giving way. He is making a good case for letting the judges in Europe continue the task of judging human rights cases, which they have undertaken for many years. Like us, the Minister clearly trusts those judges in Europe to come to the right decisions. Does he agree that there is a strong argument that the trust that he places in judges in Europe to decide on rights cases might equally well reside in judges in Britain were we to repatriate the European convention on human rights in British law?

Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman raised that issue earlier—it had not eluded me and I hope that I shall have time to address it. That was one reason why I was

proceeding at such a gallop—the hon. Gentleman is used to that from our previous debates in Committee and on the Floor of the House.
While we understand the desire for the reform to which I referred earlier to be speedily concluded, it is more important that we should get the systems right. The United Kingdom will continue to play its full part in ensuring that proposals for reforming the ECHR institutions are workable and sensible, and will secure real improvement in the handling of applications made under the convention.
The Government do not accept the hon. Gentleman's arguments for incorporating the European convention on human rights into domestic law. As I made clear in my response to his debate on 27 May in the House, we believe that the incorporation of the convention would undermine the constitutional principle whereby Parliament has the supreme responsibility for enacting and changing our laws. Most laws are specific, but the convention is broadly drawn. Its incorporation would have the undesirable consequence of bringing the judiciary into the political arena, which could threaten their reputation for impartiality.
The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that citizens of this country are disadvantaged by our non-incorporation of the ECHR is, I believe, mistaken. The general principles set out in the convention are contained in the common and statute law of this country. The incorporation of the convention by a number of other member states has not prevented their citizens from submitting large numbers of applications to the Commission, even though they may have had access to domestic constitutional courts.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the right of individual petition under article 25 of the convention. The proposal has been made in Strasbourg that the right of individual petition under article 25 should be permanent. That is not in our view an integral element of the proposals for reform; indeed, it has only recently been introduced into the debate.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the convention allows for member states to accept the right of individual petition on either a finite or an indefinite basis. The United Kingdom, along with most other member states, has done so for a limited period—currently five years—and has renewed the right on each occasion. While some may feel that accepting the right of individual petition on a permanent basis demonstrates the commitment of a member state to the ECHR, of much more importance is the extent to which the principles of the convention and the decisions of the court are observed in practice.
We shall obviously wish to discuss that matter further with our colleagues in the Council of Europe. But we see no pressing need for a change of the sort proposed. Indeed, given that we are about to embark on a radical overhaul of the ECHR machinery, consideration of the proposal might best be left until member states have acquired some experience of the new court and its jurisprudence.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Nine o'clock